CLOSING ARGUMENT- DESMOND PETERS CASE (PROSECUTION)

May it please you, your Honour,

Coming to the close of this case the Prosecution has during the pendency of
this trial highlighted a vast sequence of events and introduced uncontroverted
evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused person is guilty of
the charge of robbery.

Your Honour the main issue in this case is whether the Accused person robbed
Mrs Louisa’s purse. As I stated in my opening statement this is a very simple
case. Our Penal laws are clear on what constitutes robbery and these are (1)
the taking of the property of another (2) from his or her person or in their
presence (3) by violence, intimidation or threat (4) with the intent to deprive
them of it permanently.

Your Honour the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that indeed
it was the Accused person who stole the complainant’s purse by tearing her
bad in broad daylight. In addition, the Prosecution has adduced evidence to wit
that the Accused was properly identified at the scene of the crime by not only
the Complainant but also 3 other witnesses who directly saw the accused
person stealing from the Complainant.

This is not a case of mistaken identity as the Defence has alleged. Ms. Louisa
turned and saw the Accused person tearing her bag. She saw the Accused
person when he was stealing and when he was fleeing the scene. Indeed, Mrs
Louisa needs spectacles, it is a fact that she doesn’t have the perfect eyesight,
it is also not in dispute that she wasn’t wearing spectacles on that day but
Your Honour we are talking of a distance of less than 30 metres approximately
100 feet which was enough to properly identify the Accused person. Was the
Accused uncertain? No.

We urge this Court to find that the Accused’s defence of mistake identity is a
red herring fallacy and we invite this Court to pronounce him guilty
https://www.grahamdefense.com/resources/mock-trial-material/sample-
mock-trial-openings-and-closings/sample-closing-argument-for-a-burglary-
case/

CLOSING ARGUMENT- ALPHONCE MUOKI- RESPONDENT

May it please this Honourable Court,

A lot has been said and alleged by the Petitioners concerning the case at hand.
However, as I stated during my opening statement, the narrative by the
petitioners is purely sensational and exaggerated.

Your Honour, this Honourable Court has only 2 main issues to determine and
these are;

i. Whether there was or has ever been a customary marriage between the
Petitioner and the Respondent and;
ii. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any share of the farm.

Your Honour the law on reliance of customary marriages is settled and the
Courts have echoed the principles established by Justice Kneller in the case of
Hortensia Wanjiku Yawe v The Public Trustees, Civil Appeal 13 of August
6, 1976 whereby the Learned Judge laid down three important and salutary
principles regarding proof of customary marriages in Court. These are:

i.  The onus of proving customary law marriage is generally on the party who

claims it;

ii. The standard of proof is the usual one for a civil action, namely, one the
balance of probabilities;

iii. Evidence as to the formalities required for a customary law marriage must
be proved to that evidential standard.
Your Honour none of these elements have been sufficiently proved on a balance
of probabilities. In this case, the only proof that the Petitioner has offered to
demonstrate the alleged existence of a Customary Marriage are pictures. There
is no evidence of any negotiations by the family; no evidence of bride price
negotiations; and no demonstration of any other customary formalities.

In addition, your Honour the evidence of contribution adduced by the

Petitioner was quite sparse and has not risen to the required threshold. We
have adduced evidence to wit that the entire conveyancing transaction of the
13-acre farm is well documented and at no point during that transaction was
the Petitioner a party. The contribution so alleged by the Petitioners are simply
smoke screen tactics.

Firstly, there is no sufficient evidence to establish “in kind” contribution.

Secondly, for the avoidance of doubt and by the Petitioner’s own admission
during her testimony, she did not contribute financially to the purchase of the
subject property.

Your Honour, the conclusion then is clear that the Petitioner made no
contribution to the purchase of the Subject Property and deserves no part of
the property. We therefore pray that you dismiss this suit with costs.