Rex v Kibogo and Another (Criminal Case No. 222. of 1944)
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
Two brothers were jointly charged with murder and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The fatal blow was struck by one brother (Madenge). The trial judge reserved the question whether the other brother (Rosen) could be convicted of manslaughter on the depositions. Held: A common purpose may be proved by the acts of persons at or about the time the offence takes place. There was material in the depositions to show Rosen was associated with his brother at the time of the homicide in such a manner as to make him equally responsible in law. The conviction should stand and sentence be passed accordingly.
Outcome
Conviction of Rosen for manslaughter upheld; matter remitted to trial judge for sentencing
Facts
Two brothers, Rosen and Madenge, were charged with the murder of Kangui. Madenge had previously been caught in adultery with Kangui's wife. On the day of the killing, the two brothers, armed with knives and sticks, visited a place where Kangui and his relatives were attending a mourning feast. A fight ensued between the Kangui party and the two accused. During the fight, Madenge fatally stabbed Kangui. Both accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Madenge, who struck the fatal blow, was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment with hard labour. The trial judge was uncertain whether Rosen could be convicted of manslaughter on the depositions and reserved the question for determination by two judges under Criminal Procedure Code s.323.
Issues
- Whether the conviction of Rosen for manslaughter ought to stand notwithstanding that the fatal injury was inflicted by his co-accused Madenge.
- Whether Rosen ought to have sentence passed upon him and if so the extent and nature of that sentence.
Orders
- Conviction of Rosen on charge of manslaughter to stand.
- Sentence to be passed on Rosen by the trial judge.
- The extent and nature of the sentence is a matter exclusively for the trial judge.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Penal Code s.23
- Criminal Procedure Code s.323
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.