Rex v Kimemia (Cr. App. No. 124-37)
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
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's plea of 'It is true' when read with the charge did not amount to an unequivocal admission of an offence. The charge alleged failure to notify departure from Kiambu district and arrival in Nairobi, but being found in Nairobi was not necessarily inconsistent with maintaining a notified address at Kiambu. The conviction and sentence were set aside.
Outcome
Appellant's conviction and sentence set aside
Facts
The appellant was charged with failing to report change of address while under police supervision contrary to section 331 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He had notified police at Kilimani of his intention to proceed to Kiambu district and remain there until 1 January 1938. On 16 December 1937, he was arrested in River Road, Nairobi, having allegedly left Kiambu district without notifying his departure or arrival in Nairobi. The appellant pleaded 'It is true' before the Resident Magistrate, Nairobi, and was convicted on that plea.
Issues
- Whether the appellant's plea of 'It is true' constituted an unequivocal admission of guilt to the charge of failing to report change of address while under police supervision.
Orders
- Conviction set aside.
- Sentence set aside.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Criminal Procedure Code s.331
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.