PAUL WACHIRA MURIGU & another v REPUBLIC [2009] eKLR On appeal, the 1st appellant put forward the following grounds in his petition: 1. The learned Magistrate erred in law and in facts in convicting the appellant on a single identifying witness, and failed to warn herself the danger therein convicting (sic) on a single witness. 2. The learned magistrate erred in law and in facts in holding that the appellant indecently assaultedraped P.W.2 in (sic) absence of him being taken to medical expert like the victim having been arrested the following day to corroborate P.W.2’s evidence or in absence of any other evidence to corroborate that allegations-evidence by P.W.2 3. The learned magistrate erred in law in fact in convicting the appellant on more than 1 count of death and similarly made finding (sic) on lesser charges having passed death sentence. 4. The learned magistrate erred in law in convicting the appellant in reliance on identification parade evidence that was improperly conducted and the same had no credential (sic) values as no special marks or complexion had 1st been given. 5. The learned magistrate erred in law and in facts in convicting the appellant in the reliance of visuals (sic) identification evidence and failed to find distance of the assailant from the victim length of time witness was under observation of the suspect was never disclosed. 6. The learned magistrate erred in law and in facts in failing to uphold reasons (sic) of appellant (sic) arrest was unexplained. 7. The learned magistrate erred in law in failing to find the defence of the appellant meritorious which was true and honest defence by the appellant. On his part the 2nd appellant presented the following grounds in his petition: 1. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact for (sic) while convicting me with the charge of handling of which the alleged cell phone was mine and nobody claimed to be his/hers. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 2/5