JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted together with a co-accused named Murutu of the offence of stealing goods in transit, contrary to section 279(c) of the Penal Code. They both appealed to the High Court against their convictions. The two appeals were summarily rejected by the same judge of the High Court.
Murutu appealed again to this court. His appeal was remitted for hearing by the High Court as it ought not to have been summarily rejected under section 352(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
Murutu’s appeal was heard in due course. The judge who had originally rejected it summarily allowed the appeal, quashed Murutu’s conviction and set aside the sentence.
The convictions of both the appellant and Murutu depended upon their identification by one Ambrose Isaac Ombok (PW 4) a single identifying witness.
One of the appellant’s ground of appeal to the High Court was that his identification by Ambrose was questionable. This was a substantial ground of law which took it out of the ambit of secti…