Samwel Kiberenge v Republic [2013] eKLR July, 2010, to this Court. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant who appeared in person, wholly relied on the nine grounds set out in the Memorandum of Appeal which are reproduced hereunder: 1. That the learned Judge erred in law in dismissing the appellant’s appeal and charge sheet (sic) that was incurably defective in substance and invalid. 2. The learned Judge erred in law in failing to find that there was violation of the appellant's fundamental rights under section 77 (2) (b) of the then Constitution of Kenya as read with section 198 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which require interpretation of the evidence given in his presence during trial. 3. The learned Judge erred in law by arriving at a wrong decision against the weight of evidence on record. 4. The learned Judge erred in law when she failed to consider that the evidence on record does not support the charge. 5. The learned Judge erred in law in failing to take into consideration the appellant's evidence when making the judgment. 6. The learned Judge grossly misdirected herself as she did not observe that the appellant’s fundamental constitutionally guaranteed right had been violated grossly as he was placed in Bungoma Police custody as from 2/8/2008 to 9/8/2008 hence 7 days than (sic) the required period of 24 hours. 7. That the learned judge erred in law in dismissing the appellant’s appeal by failing to appreciate that the case was not only insufficient, but was contradictory, unreliable, fubricative, [sic] speculative, discredited and inconsistent in material (sic). The particulars were totally inadequate to sustain a conviction. 8. That the learned Judge erred in law in dismissing the appellant’s appeal considering that the forensic evidence was missing as the victim was not taken for DNA test to verify if the semen deposit were from the appellant. 9. That in all circumstances of the case, the learned Judge did not exercise her authority in the matter judiciously and or excusably. [sic]” The appellant further generally reiterated his defence, that the charges were fabricated by his first wife who had a disagreement with him. He urged the court to allow his appeal. Mr Nicholas K. Mutuku, learned Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, opposed the appeal stating that the conviction and sentence were safe. He contended that there was sufficient evidence to support the charge of defilement before the trial court; that the evidence of NNM was well corroborated by that of her mother PNW and the medical evidence. He argued that the delay in disclosing the alleged defilement was due to threats of death from the appellant. In any event, he argued, that if the appellant was to be examined for a sexually transmitted disease there was a likelihood that the findings would be different as the period of time for testing was sufficient for the appellant to http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 3/8