Rex v Jiwa (Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1948)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
Held that genuine police spies are not accomplices and their evidence does not require corroboration. A witness who initially contemplated participating in an illegal transaction but reported it to authorities and acted as an agent in a police trap before any offence was committed is a genuine police spy, not an accomplice. The rule requiring corroboration of accomplice evidence is based on the untrustworthiness of accomplices who seek to shift guilt, are immoral persons likely to disregard oaths, or testify under promise of pardon. Police spies fall into none of these categories.
Outcome
Convictions on counts 1, 3 and 5 upheld
Facts
The appellant operated a shop at Fort Hall selling groceries and liquor. On 20 December 1947, he asked witness Simon Njeroge if he could get someone to buy sugar and European liquor. Njeroge said he could buy them himself. The next day, Njeroge asked the price of a bag of sugar. The appellant quoted Sh. 175. Njeroge considered this too high and reported the matter to Fernandes, the District Commissioner's clerk, who consulted the District Officer. They arranged a trap whereby Njeroge would carry out the purchase using marked currency notes while Fernandes and two police askaris watched. Njeroge purchased 448 lb of sugar and one bottle of Emu brandy for Sh. 350 and Sh. 23 respectively. The appellant was convicted by the Resident Magistrate on four counts. The Supreme Court of Kenya quashed one conviction but upheld three: unlawfully selling liquor to a native, selling rationed foodstuffs without accepting coupons, and failing to supply an invoice.
Issues
- Whether the District Officer, his clerk, police askaris, and the witness Njeroge were accomplices requiring corroboration of their evidence.
- Whether a genuine police spy is an accomplice within the rule of practice requiring corroboration.
- Whether a witness who initially intended to profit from an illegal transaction but became a police informer before the offence was committed is an accomplice or a police spy.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Liquor Ordinance 1934 s.39
- Defence (Control of Distribution and Rationing of Foodstuffs) Regulations 1944 reg.16(1)
- Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1945 reg.17(2)
- Street Betting Act 1906 s.14
- Indian Evidence Act s.105
Cases cited (4)
- R v Habib Kara Vesta and others (1 E.A.C.A. 191)
- Brannan v Peek [1947] 2 All ER 572
- R v Mullins (1848) 3 Cox CC 526
- R v Putland and Sorrell [1946] 1 All ER 85
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.