“This court is satisfied the appellants were not only convicted on the evidence on identification, but on evidence on a chain of events that led to their arrest. The offence of robbery with violence was proved to the desired threshold,” said Justice Mshila.

The judge also dismissed their claim that the trial court disregarded their defence during hearing of the case.

Mr Kamau explained that on the material date the robbery incident happened, he was at home on the doing cleaning and that he never left the house. He only knew of the robbery incident at the police station. But the trial court was not convinced and disregarded the defence as a mere denial and found that it never overturned the prosecution evidence.

Mr Mwatha, on his side said he was at his place of work employed by Jacqueline Waithera and he left in the evening at 4pm.

But Ms Waithera, in her defence evidence, could not recall the date she had given Mr Mwatha casual work but stated that it was the day he was arrested.

The judge ruled the defence did not displace the prosecution’s evidence as she said the appeal lacked merit.

Page 2 of 2