Group 4

Character Evidence
SATURDAY, 25TH MAY, 2024.
Outline of the Presentation
• Definition of Character in Evidence Law
• History of Character Evidence
• Character Evidence in Civil Cases
• Exceptions to the General Rule of Character Evidence in Civil Cases
• Character Evidence in Criminal Cases
• Exceptions to the General Rule of Character Evidence in Criminal
Cases
Sub-Topic One:

Definition of Character Evidence

Definition of ‘Character’ in Evidence Law
(…1)
Layman Definition: This is information presented in a court about a person’s behavior, traits or reputation. This tends
to infer that someone acts in a certain way in certain circumstances. It is used in both criminal and civil cases to prove
or refute a point.
• The concept of character, for purposes of evidence law, embraces both disposition (i.e. propensity to act in a
relevant way) and reputation (see section 58). Courts often have to decide, especially in criminal cases, on the
relevance and admissibility of character evidence. This will normally happen when (i) the character is directly in
issue (e.g. in a defamation case); or (ii) goes to credit.
Definition of Reputation and Disposition
• Disposition of a person is his inclination , proclivity or inner tendency for instance his tendency to act, think or feel
in a given way. It also refers to a general tendency of character or behavior e.g. one can be said to have a happy
disposition. THE SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY defines “Disposition”, as “The state or quality of being
disposed (to, or to do something); inclination (Occas. – desire, intention).
• Reputation refers to the opinion held by pothers about someone or something. It is the degree e to which one is
thought of either positively or negatively by others. THE SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY defines
“reputation” as “The common or general estimate of a person with respect to character or other qualities; the
relative estimation or esteem in which a person is held.”
Definition of ‘Character’ in Evidence Law
(…2)
• In Kenya, character evidence is governed by the Evidence Act, Cap 80, and
relevant case law interpretations. Further, the rules as to admissibility of
character evidence are set out in Sections 55-58 of the Evidence Act.
• Section 58 of the Evidence Act defines “character” in the following terms:
“In sections 55, 56 and 57 the word “character” includes both reputation and
disposition; but, except as provided in section 57, evidence may be given only of
general reputation and general disposition, and not of particular acts by which
reputation or disposition were shown”
Definition of ‘Character’ in Evidence Law
(…3)
• Mohamed Hassan Osman v R (2007): This was an appeal case where the appellant had been convicted of robbery
with violence. The principle witness testified that he knew the appellant and that he had a bad character, which
influenced the bench. The court held that evidence of an accused person’s previous bad character is generally
inadmissible unless the accused himself has put forth his character as an issue. In this case, the appellant had
introduced the topic of his character, and thus could not later complain about its admission.
• Republic v Festo Wandera Mukoya (2018): This case illustrated the principle that character evidence, specifically
the defendant's previous conduct, can be relevant in determining their current behavior. The court found that the
defendant's past actions were admissible since they were directly related to the incident under investigation and
helped establish a pattern of behavior.
• Republic v M'Ngaruthi (1984): This case reinforced the rule that evidence of bad character is not admissible unless
the defendant introduces it. The court highlighted that the primary reason for this exclusion is to ensure that the
defendant is tried only for the specific offense charged, not for being a person of bad character
Admissibility of Character Evidence
Generally, this is determined by the following three factors, which will be
expounded further in the presentation:

a) The purpose of the character evidence

b) The form in which it is offered
c) The type of proceeding (civil or criminal)

“In criminal cases evidence of the good character of the accused is most properly and with good
reason admissible in evidence, because there is a fair and just presumption that a person of good
character would not commit a crime; but in civil cases such evidence is with equal good reason not
admitted, because no presumption would fairly arise, in the very great proportion of such cases, from
the good character of the defendant, that he did not commit the breach of contract or of civil duty
alleged against him.”
McGill Law Journal
Sub-Topic Two:

Definition of Character Evidence

 History of Character Evidence (…1)
Facts of the Case:
• In this case the accused was charged with indecent assault and he gave evidence of his good
moral character.
Case-Law One: • The prosecution to rebut this evidence of this good moral character called a person who
testified that he had no knowledge of the neighborhood's opinion but his own opinion was
that the accused was a man capable of the grossest indecency and the most flagrant
R v Rowtown (1865) immorality.
LJMC 57 • He said that this is also the opinion of his brothers who were the accused’s pupils held.
• The question was whether this evidence was admissible.
Court’s Holding:
• That this evidence was not admissible because it was based on the witness’s own opinion as
opposed to the opinion of the community.
• Two judges dissented arguing that the evidence ought to have been admitted because it was
based on the witness’s intimate knowledge of the accused rather than that of the community.
• The majority bench’s decision was still of the view that since it was not a general
neighborhood opinion, it was not admissible.
• In this case the court was overemphasizing the need for big numbers to hold a similar view
before the evidence could be admitted.
• Courts seem to use disposition and reputation interchangeably and it seems confusing.
 History of Character Evidence (…2)
Facts of the Case:
•In substance the evidence of the appellant was that he did not conspire to aid or
Case-Law Two: procure the commission of arson or malicious injury to property but that on the
contrary he declined to participate in illegal action.
Malindi v. R (1967) 1 •Counsel for the prosecution then intimated to the learned judge that he wished to
AC 93 cross-examine the appellant in regard to certain passages.
•Counsel then proceeded to cross-examine the appellant about a passage in an essay
written on February 8 1961 in which the use of violence was commended and was
asserted to be necessary.
•The witness was then asked various questions about another note-book in which he
had written and in which there was a reference to a stand against colonialists and
settler regimes and the total evacuation of all foreign peoples in Africa and the entire
abolition of capitalism.
•He was further asked about another note-book in which he had written of the time
when there would be an end of the oppression of the African by the settlers
 History of Character Evidence (…3)
Court’s Holding:
•Though the appeal was dismissed, the Chief Justice was of opinion that the appeal should have
been allowed.
Case-Law Two: •He considered that the questions which related to the appellant’s views on violence were
questions tending to show that the appellant was of bad character, that the appellant had not put
Malindi v. R (1967) 1 his character in issue ... and that the questions put in cross-examination were not justifiable.
AC 93 •He also held that it could not be said that without the inadmissible evidence the court must have
convicted. Quenet FJ referred to the judgment of the learned judge and said that references in it
to the writings of the appellant could not be construed as indicating that because the appellant
had a bad character, he was likely to commit the crimes with which he was charged.
•He considered that the legitimate probative force of the essays was considerable, and though the
cross-examination was allowed on a different basis it was legitimate for the reason that the
appellant in his evidence had given evidence of his own good character.
•Forbes FJ was also of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. He considered that the
appellant had in his evidence put his character in issue with the result that the questions in cross-
examination were not excluded.
Sub-Topic Three:

Character Evidence in Civil Cases

Introduction

• In Kenya, the rules as to admissibility of character evidence are set

out in Sections 55 - 58 of the Evidence Act (2012).
• Section 58 of the Evidence Act defines “character” in the following
terms:
“In sections 55, 56 and 57 the word “character” includes both
reputation and disposition; but, except as provided in section 57,
evidence may be given only of general reputation and general
disposition, and not of particular acts by which reputation or
disposition were shown”
General Rule on Character Evidence in Civil Cases

• The rule as to admissibility of character evidence in civil cases is set out in Section 55 of the
Evidence Act 2012, which states as follows;

“(1) In civil cases, the fact that the character of any person concerned is such as to render probable or
improbable any conduct imputed to him is inadmissible except in so far as such character appears from facts
otherwise admissible.’

‘(2) In civil cases, the fact that the character of any person is such as to affect the amount of damages, is
admissible.”
• It contains the principle that in civil cases in general, evidence of the character of the parties
will be rejected. Evidence of Character in civil cases cannot be led to establish the commission
of a wrong by a person merely by bringing their character before the court.
• The argument is that the business of the court is to try the case before the court. One is not
supposed to be interrogating or inquiring into a person’s entire life and if one brings
extraneously details about the person’s character you are making a person defend their whole
lives.
• The general principle is that in civil cases, evidence of character will not be admissible.
In R v Rowton (1865) Le & Ca 520 CCR
Facts of the case:
• The accused, who was charged with indecent assault on a
boy aged 14 years, called several witnesses to his
character. His witnesses gave him “an excellent character,
as a moral and well-conducted man.”
• On the part of the prosecution, it was proposed to
contradict this testimony and a witness was called for
that purpose. The prosecution witness was asked, “what
is the defendant's general character for decency and
morality of conduct?"
• The prosecution witness replied:
• "I know nothing of the neighborhood’s opinion, because I
was only a boy at school when I knew him; but my own
opinion, and the opinion of my brothers who were also
pupils of his, is that his character is that of a man capable
of the grossest indecency and the most flagrant
immorality.”
• The accused was convicted. He appealed, contending that
the prosecution witness’s evidence of his bad character
was inadmissible.
Court’s Holding:
• When evidence of good character has been
given in favor of a prisoner, evidence of his
general bad character can be called in reply.
• Character evidence means evidence of
general reputation. Accordingly, evidence of
character must be restricted to a man's
general reputation, and must not extend to
the individual opinion of the witness.
• The evidence given by the prosecution
witness was inadmissible, as it was confined
to the witness’ personal opinion as to the
reputation of the accused instead of the
accused’s general reputation.
Exceptions to the general rule against character evidence in civil
cases
• Section 55(1) of the Evidence Act states thus; “In civil cases, the fact that the
character of any person is such as to affect the amount of damages, is admissible.”
• Kyalo Mbobu highlights the following instances where character evidence in civil
cases is admissible in Kenya:
1.When the character is directly in issue (e.g., defamation cases).
2.When character is relevant to the fact in issue
• According to Mbobu, evidence of the disposition of the defendant towards wrong
doing or commission of a particular kind of civil wrong may be admissible if it is of
sufficient relevance or probative force in relation to the fact in issue i.e. constitutes
Similar Fact Evidence.
• Section 55(2) of the Evidence Act states thus; ‘In civil cases, the fact that the
character of any person is such as to affect the amount of damages, is admissible.’
- When character affects the quantum of damages
- When character is relevant to credit
 Exceptions to the general rule against
character evidence in civil cases (…2)
1. Character as a Fact in Issue:
• Explanation: Evidence of an accused party's character is admissible where character is an essential element in the
cause of action. It is said to occur where character is the very subject matter of the charge.
• Example: An action for defamation is taken by a plaintiff who claims that the defendant made false statements that
caused a loss to his reputation. The defendant offers the defence that the statements are true (justification). In this
instance, the plaintiff's character is in issue. Proof may then be led that, having a reputation for truth and honesty,
the defamatory matter is unquestionably false of the plaintiff.
2. Character and Quantum of Damages:
• Explanation: The character of a party may be relevant to the quantum of damages. Good character might result in an
award of greater damages, while bad character might lead to lower damages.
• The damages awardable are dependent on the estimation in which he is held by society. This means the higher a
person is placed in a society, the more the damages payable to him, if plaintiff succeeds in his claim, if the plaintiff
succeeds in his claim.
In Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pyt Ltd (1967) 117 C.L.R 118 Windeyer J. Said
“ It seems to me that that, properly speaking , a man defamed does not get compensation for his damaged reputation.
He gets damaged because he was injured in his reputation, that is simply because he was publicly defamed. For this
reason compensation by damages operates in two ways- as a vindication of the plaintiff to the public, and as
consolation to him for a wrong done. Compensation is here a solatium rather than a monetary recompense for harm
measurable in money”
Exceptions to the general rule against
character evidence in civil cases (…3)
3. Character is Relevant to a Fact in Issue:
• Explanation: There is evidence that is admissible to prove a fact in issue that may also be adduced on the question of
the character of the person. In fact, it is often used to show a similar pattern of conduct.
• Evidence of disposition of the defendant towards wrongdoings or commission of a particular kind of civil wrong
doing may be admissible if its of sufficient relevance or probative force in relation to the facts in issue . Such evidence
of a particular acts of misconduct on other occasions and is designated ‘Similar facts Evidence’
In Mood Music Publishing Co. Ltd v De Wolfe Ltd (1976) Ch the plaintiff were owners of the copyright in a musical
work called ‘Sogno Nostalgico’ They alleged that the defendants had infringed such copyright by supplying for
broadcasting a work entitled ‘Girl in Dark’.
It was not disputed that the works were similar, but the defendant argued that the similarity was coincidental and denied
copying, even though ‘Sogno Nostalgico’ was composed prior to the ‘Girl in the Dark’
4. Character Relevant to Credit:
• Explanation: A witness's character is always an attackable ground as to their credit. This is very much useful to show
the guardians that the witness might be more unreliable because of their character.
• Example: In the claim for the damages for the breach of contract, a witness who, in thinking, is in favour of the
defendant, the plaintiff may adduce some evidence that this defendant is of a dishonest character or has antecedents of
fraud because of the past doubtfulness regarding his convictions. In this way, the court will be able to gauge the
witness's reliability.
Notable Caselaw
• In the case of Regina V Ellis (1961), the two applicants, James and Richard Ellis were tried
together with Gamble. They were accused of breaking into a warehouse.
• James gave evidence in chief on the first day of trial. He claimed that Gamble had told him that
that he had brought some bankrupt stock and wanted it removed.
• Thereafter the counsel for Gamble applied to be allowed to cross examine James Ellis on his
criminal record claiming that he had given the evidence against another person charged with
offense outlined in Section 1(iii) of the Criminal Evidence Acts,1898. The application was
successful.
• James Ellis was cross examined, and the jury made aware of his criminal records.
• The proceeding day, Gamble changed his plea on the charge of receiving to guilty. All the three
were convicted.
• However, James and Richard Ellis appealed against the conviction that the jury wrongly
permitted the cross examination of James Ellis and if not them the judge should have discharged
the jury and ordered a new trial because it was totally inappropriate to have allowed the jury to
know the criminal records of James Ellis.
Sub-Topic Four:

Character Evidence in Criminal

Cases
General Rule of Character Evidence in
Criminal Cases
• Character evidence generally refers to using a person's previous
character traits to prove that they acted according to those traits on a
particular occasion.
• The general rule regarding the admissibility of character evidence in
criminal cases is that evidence of the accused’s bad character is
INADMISSIBLE while evidence of his good character is ADMISSIBLE.
• These provisions which are contained in Sections 56 and 57 of the
Evidence Act, are discussed further, with their rationale too.
 Good vs Bad Character in Criminal Cases
• Section 56 of the Evidence Act provides that good character evidence be generally
admissible in courts. There may be various reasons for this, including broadening the
view on the defendant’s moral standing among many others.

• It is however important to take note of the fact that if an accused presents evidence
of his good character then the prosecution will be allowed to show evidence of his
bad character as a rebuttal (Evidence Act section 57)

• Section 57 of the Evidence Act provides that the fact that the accused person has
committed or been convicted of or charged with any offense other than that with
which he is then charged, or is of bad character, is inadmissible. There exist
exemptions to it though which are the following slides.
Section 57 – Evidence Law Act (…1)
• (1) In criminal proceedings the fact that the
accused person has committed or been
convicted of or charged with any offence
other than that with which he is then
charged, or is of bad character, is
inadmissible unless -
• (aa) such evidence is otherwise admissible
as evidence of a fact in issue or is directly
relevant to a fact in issue; or
• (a) the proof that he has committed or been
convicted of such other offence is admissible
under section 14 or section 15 to show that he
is guilty of the offence with which he is then
charged; or
• (b) he has personally or by his advocate asked
questions of a witness for the prosecution with
a view to establishing his own character, or has
given evidence of his own good character; or
Section 57 – Evidence Law Act (…2)
• (c) the nature or conduct of the defence is such as to involve
• (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of
imputations on the character of the complainant or of a
witness for the prosecution; or subsection (1), evidence of previous
• (d) he has given evidence against any other person charged
conviction for an offence may be
with the same offence: Provided that the court may, in its
discretion, direct that specific evidence on the ground of the given in a criminal trial after
exception referred to in paragraph (c) shall not be led if, in
the opinion of the court, the prejudicial effect of such
conviction of the accused person, for
evidence upon the person accused will so outweigh the the purpose of affecting the sentence
damage done by imputations on the character of the
complainant or of any witness for the prosecution as to to be awarded by the court.
prevent a fair trial.
Subsection 4 (b): Exceptions to the General Rule
of Character Evidence in Criminal Cases
1. Evidence which forms part of a fact in issue or is directly
relevant to the fact in issue.

Case Law:
Mugo vs. Republic [1966] EA
In this case, it was argued that based on the wording of Section 57 (1)
(a), where the accused were charged with more than one count, a
court should direct itself that any evidence which showed an accused
was guilty of an offence of any one of the counts, was inadmissible and
could not be taken into account when considering any of the other
counts.
2. Similar Fact Evidence Exception
• Similar facts evidence is evidence of disposition of the accused towards wrongdoing or of
specific acts of misconduct on other occasions whether or not they resulted in previous
convictions. Such evidence is exceptionally admissible where it is sufficient probative force
concerning the question of guilt on the charge before the court.
• Section 57 (1) (a) read together with section 14 and 15 states that evidence which proves that
the accused person has committed or been convicted of such an offence is admissible to show
that he is guilty of the offence with which he is then charged.
• In such cases, the rule is that evidence which would show that the accused did what he did as
part of a system advertently or with guilty knowledge is admissible (Note evidence of non-
criminal immorality is not admissible and only evidence of previous convictions is admissible.)

Case Law:
Republic vs.Cokar [1960] 2 QB 207
 R vs.Cokar [1960] 2 QB 207
• Cockar was charged with breaking and entering with intent to steal. In his
defence he alleged that he had entered for the sake of warmth and sleep.
Evidence was adduced of a similar charge in the past where he had also pleaded
for similar evidence and had been acquitted of that similar charge.
• He was convicted based on the evidence of the previous antecedent and he
appealed on the ground that the conviction was based on inadmissible evidence
of the previous offence.
• The court held that the conviction should be quashed because the matters
relating to the previous antecedent did not result in conviction and was therefore
outside the purview of the English equivalent of Section 57 (1) (a).
• The court is saying here that for similar fact evidence to be admissible as an
exception to S 57 (1) (a) it has to have been a conviction.
3. Integral Part of Defence Theory (The Inevitable Loss of
Shield) – Maxwell’s Shield

• If the accused person has personally or by his advocate asked questions of a witness for
the prosecution with the view to establishing his own good character or has given
evidence of his own good character then evidence showing that the accused person has
committed or been convicted of or charged with any offence other than that with which
he is then charged or that he is of bad character will be admissible.
• Section 57 (1) (b) and Section 56 (which is to the effect that in criminal proceedings the
fact that the person accused is of good character is admissible).
• At common law and under the KEA if the accused does not put his own character in issue
evidence of his bad character (other than admission of similar facts evidence) is
inadmissible.
• Section 57 (1) (b) or (c) seem to amend the common law position such as not to require
the accused person to testify. The exception therefore should not be taken as an attempt
by the courts to deprive an accused person of a chance to develop his line of defence or
that protestation of his innocence be taken as offers of evidence of good character.
Case Law: Maxwell vs. DPP [1935] AC 309, 32 LGR 335
• A doctor was charged with manslaughter of a lady who died while
procuring an illegal abortion.
• In his defence he stated that he had lived a good moral and clean life with
the result that the prosecution successfully applied to cross-examine the
accused on his past antecedents.
• The prosecution produced evidence which was admitted and which showed
that the doctor had earlier been acquitted of a charge of abortion.
• In the words of the court: “If a prisoner by himself seeks to give evidence of
his own good character for the purposes of showing that he is unlikely to
have committed the offence with which he is charged, he may fairly be
cross -examined on such issues in order to prove the contrary”.
Case Law: Maxwell vs. DPP [1935] AC 309, 32 LGR 335
• The reasons that you have cross examination on the accused is for two purposes;
(i) To demolish the defence that the accused puts forward and this goes to the
issue;
(ii)To demonstrate that the accused is an unreliable person even on oath, so this
goes to credit.
• At Common Law, and as per KEA, if an accused person does not put his own
character in issue, evidence of his bad character (other than admission of similar
fact evidence) is inadmissible.
• Section 57(1)(b)&(c) seem to amend the Common Law position such as not to
require the accused person to testify. The exeption should not be taken as an
attempt by the courts to deprive an accused person of a chance to develop his line
of defence or that protestation of his innocence be taken as offers of evidence of
his good character.
4. If the Nature or Conduct of the Defence is Such as to Cast or
Make Imputations on the Character of the Complainant or of a
Witness for the Prosecution (Section 57(1)(c)

• This exception renders admissible any evidence in proof of the accused

person’s bad character or of his previous convictions when the conduct of
the defence is such as to make imputations on the character of the
complainant or a witness for the prosecution.
• The question is always whether the accused person is attacking the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses outside the evidence given. This is a
question of fact wherein only knowledge and experience would come to
the aid of the court.
• Caselaw: Omondi & Another v Republic (1967)EA
Omondi & Another v Republic (1967)EA
• The Appellants were charged with robbery with violence.
• During cross examination the first appellant suggested that the Police Sergeant who had given evidence
against him was deliberately committing perjury.
• Thereafter the court allowed the prosecution to put questions to the first Appellant touching on his first
convictions. The Appellants were convicted.
• They appealed challenging admissibility of evidence of past convictions.
• The court held that to challenge the evidence of a witness for the prosecution is not to cast aspersions
on the character of the witness within the meaning of S. 57.
• The court emphasised the latter part of Section 57 (1) (c) which in their wording meant that if the defence
involves a proposition that the jury ought not believe the prosecution, or one of he witnesses for the
prosecution, then the jury also needs to know what kind of character the prisoner has.
• It looks like in this case the line is very thin, if you are saying that the witness for prosecution is not to be
believed, then the court need to know if you are to be believed. What amounts to casting aspersions, it is
not clear since they will hold it as casting aspersions in one case and in the other as an integral part of the
defence.
Republic vs. Jones [1923] 19 CAR
• The court may in its discretion direct that specific evidence on the ground of this
exception shall not be led if, in the opinion of the court, the prejudicial effect of such
evidence upon the person accused will outweigh the damage done by imputations on the
character of the complainant or of witness for the prosecution as to prevent a fair trial.

• The cardinal points upon which a court should exercise its discretion are the trial judge
must weigh the prejudicial effect of the questions against the damage done by the attack
on the prosecution witnesses by the defence and must generally exercise his discretion,
to secure a trial that is both fair to the prosecution and defence.
5. Evidence Against a Co-Accused

• This exception arises where the accused has given evidence against any other
person charged with the same offence. See Section 57 (1) (d) of the KEA.
• The rationale here is that evidence tendered by a co-accused to show the
misconduct of the co-accused on behalf of the prosecution if relevant to the
defence of the accused is admissible whether or not it prejudices the co-
accused.
• Similarly, where the co-accused has given evidence against the accused, the
accused in seeking to defend himself should not be fettered in any way from
cross-examining the co-accused.
• An accused person who feels that he has been wrongly framed by a co-
accused can challenge the admissibility of such evidence.
Murdoch vs. Taylor [1964] 49 CAR 119
• According to Professor Cross the rationale in this case is that as far as an accused is concerned if a
co-accused gives evidence against him, he/she should be viewed as being in very much the same
position as a witness for the Prosecution. Sound policy and common sense demands that an
accused person should have a chance to challenge any testimony given by a co-accused.
• It is important to note that cross-examination under section 57 (1) (d) is directed towards the
character and the credit of the co-accused and not his guilt i.e. this confers upon an accused the
right to discredit a co-accused who assumes the role of a prosecution witness and give evidence
against him.
• The law allows the accused person to show by reference to the bad criminal record of the co-
accused that his testimony is not worthy of belief.
• In a criminal case, the character evidence rule applies in the course of a proceeding that is before
conviction. After conviction in a criminal trial, the prosecution is allowed to adduce evidence of
previous convictions of an accused person, in order to enable the court, to assess the applicable
sentence to be meted out upon an accused. See Section 57 (2) of KEA.
6. Defendant’s Character

• In a criminal case, a defendant may offer evidence of their own

pertinent trait. If admitted, the prosecutor can then offer evidence to
rebut it. The accused can introduce evidence of their good character
to support their innocence. This is typically done through witnesses
testifying to the accused’s reputation for honesty, peacefulness, etc.,
relevant to the crime charged as provided for in Section 56 of the
Evidence Act.
• In the case of Mwangi v. Republic [1983] eKLR , the accused, charged
with theft, introduced evidence from his village elders about his good
character for honesty. The court ruled this admissible as relevant to
his defense.
7. Character of the Victim
• In homicide cases, the defense may use testimonials about the victim's
personality to bolster their allegation that the victim was the one who
attacked.
• Cases involving sexual assault: Under certain circumstances, limited
evidence about the victim's prior sexual activity may be admissible. These
circumstances are typically governed by "rape shield" statutes, which
serve to protect victims by restricting the acceptance of such evidence.
• Character of a Witness: Impeachment of Credibility: Information
pertaining to a witness's dishonesty may be admitted in order to cast
doubt on their credibility. On the other hand, if a witness's credibility is
called into question, proof of their honesty may be presented.
Republic v. Joe Kibe Nganga [2018] eKLR .
• Joe Kibe Nganga faced charges of homicide. The defense presented testimony from multiple
witnesses during the trial to support their claim that the accused was an honest and peaceful
person and that it was therefore implausible that he would have committed such a horrific
crime.

• The court took into account Kenya Evidence Act Section 53(1), which allows testimony on an
accused person's moral character to be introduced in court. The court reasoned that this kind
of evidence might sway the jury's verdict regarding the accused's likelihood of committing the
claimed offense.
• The court held that the defense's claim that the accused was not likely to commit murder
received some support from the court when it acknowledged the excellent character evidence
and took it into consideration when evaluating the case as a whole.
Republic v. Juma Ufueni [2015] eKLR
• Juma Ufueni, the defendant, was on trial for the victim's murder. By presenting
proof of the victim's violent and aggressive past, which aroused worries of an
impending attack, the defense claimed self-defense.

• The court examined how evidence of the victim's aggressive tendencies could
bolster the self-defense claim, taking into account Section 53(1) of the Kenya
Evidence Act, which permits character testimony in criminal cases.

• The victim's violent past was allowed to be shown in court because the court
considered it important to know if the accused had acted in self-defense.
References

1. Constitution of Kenya, 2010

2. Evidence Act (Cap 80) of the Laws of Kenya

3. Mbobu Kyalo, The Law and Practice of Evidence in Kenya, 2011, Law Africa