UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

SPECIAL/SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATIONS 2016/2017

SECOND YEAR EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF
LAWS

GPR 207 & GPR 215: EVIDENCE LAW/EVIDENCE II

DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
TIME: 2.00 P.M.-4.00 P.M.

INSTRUCTIONS: Question 1 is compulsory, answer any other 2 Questions

QI.
Evidence Law is premised on the fact that evidentiary material needs to be admitted if they
are related to the fact in issue i.e, approve or disapprove a fact in issue (Sec
5). But there exists several instances when the evidence Act creates exemptions
to this rule. Identify and explain these instances. (30 Marks)
R Vs Makin has an old time rule developed on "striking similarities" and admission of
evidentiary material. Identify and explain this rule. (20 Marks)
Q3. Expert opinion is treated by the courts as admissible evidence in certain instances.
Highlight the said instances when the law will accept and admit such evidentiary material
(20 Marks)
Q4
Documents in evidence jurisprudence are all treated as forgeries until proven otherwise.
With specific focus on public documents emanating from the executive, judiciary
and tribunals how will the same be admitted considering it is difficult to secure the
originals as required by the law? (Documents must be originals and produced b the
maker for purposes of admissibility). (20 Marks)

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
SPECIAL/SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATIONS – 2015/2016
SECOND YEAR EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF

DATE: AUGUST 25, 2015

 INSTRUCTIONS:
LAWS

GPR 207: EVIDENCE I

a) Answer Question I. and any other 2 questions.

TIME: 2.00 P.M.-4.00 P.M.

* 5) Question Ï carries 40 marks. Each of the other questions carries 15

marks.
c) Support each of your answers with relevant case law, statutory provisions and/or
any other
relevant authorities..
d) Keep your answers as precise and succinct as
possible.
e) Marko may be lost on uccount of illegible handwriting wordiness and/or
vagueness.
Your Answer Sheet must bear your Candidate Registration Number.

Question 1:

(1)
Cabal

Mr. Potus Onyango, a luscious soul from the USA (Le. the Ugenya, Siaya and Alego
region of Kenya), was charged with the offences of murder and rape at the Njuri Ncheke
law courts of Meru. According to the charge sheet, Onyango had offered miss Kikenya Kinene
a 'ride' in his black Porsche Cayenne ("the Beast") on the pretext that he would take
her to the beatification memorial for the Blessed sister Delilah Wanjiku, the matron saint of
Nyeri women. Miss Kinene was a stunning 'Campus diva' with an abundant 'sitting allowance',
a huge front office' a smooth 'yellow yellow' type of skin and the so-called 'bewitching
gap' in the middle of her upper front teeth. These 'endowments', the prosecution alleged,
had spurred a twirl of carnal ideas in Onyango's big
head. Following these
carnal ideas the persecution further alleged -- Onyango contrived a scheme
in which he persuaded Miss Kinene to agree to a stopover at Karumaindos, ostensibly
to refuel the Beast and "take one for the road." The charge sheet further alleged that
 Onyango had laced Miss Gikenye's drink with a stupefying drug commonly known as
'mchele' when she temporarily left the table to 'leak'. Miss Kinene was said to have
become hazy and developed a condition known as 'nyege' in campus slang, within
moments of imbibing the laced Smirnoff Ice. Onyango the prosecution alleged, then
took Gikenye to an upper room at Karumaindos and repeatedly ravished her. The
prosecution further alleged that Onyango had strangled a Miss Clandestina Mwikali to death
when she demanded greater commitment and a confirmation as to where their secret
relationship was "heading." The prosecution evidence, the relevance and admissibility
of which was highly contested by Onyango, included, included (i) the oral testimony
of Miss Gilenye; (ii) a transcript of frantic telephone calls allegedly made to Kitu
Kidogo Police Station by the deceased at the

Page 1 of 3

{P}

time of the alleged strangulation; (iii) a document titled "P:-c2-mort: a Repc:?" from
Nyeri Women's capital; (iv) the reel fertio,, Pros Akinyi; and
video clips from the CCTV cameras installed at Karegain:ks. The "Post-mortem Report" was
signed by a Dr. Rameses Imhotep (Chief Government Pathologist) but adduced in
evidence by a gynaecologist from the Nyeri, Women's Hospital. It identified the cause
of the death of the deceased as asphyxia and broken neck arising from
manual strangulation. The video clips showed blurred images of a violet romp in
which the man appeared to physically subdue the woman with the latter saying
"Onyango nimesallenda." Flotus-Akinyi, who had cohabited with Onyango for many
years.in.an arrangement described by the neighbours as "friends with benefits" and
other funny epithets, testified that Onyango was a man of ungovernable temper,
hostile disposition and a penchant for attempting to strangle any woman who
refused to 'give' him. The telephone transcript, which had been made by police
constable Joshua Boinet, was adduced in evidence by the Officer Commanding Kitu
Kidogo Police Station. The trial magistrate disallowed Onyango's request to cross-
examine Miss Kinene, on the ground that the proposed cross-examination questions
were "ungentlemanly" and unnecessarily intrusive into the complaint's private life. The
trial magistrate also disallowed Onyango's application to issue a witness summons to
His Beatitude Cardinal Lucifer Wanjohi, the head of the Commando Ministries
Church in Kenya, as a witness. Onyango had sought to examine Cardinal Wanjohi
on the contents of some exculpatory statements that Miss Kinene had alleged made
to him in confidence at the "confession box" on the Sunday following the alleged
 rape. The trial magistrate ruled that the summoning of Cardinal Wanjohi as a defence
witness would not serve any useful purpose, as be was entitled to refuse divulge the
confidential information allegedly given to him by Miss Kinene at the said
"confession box." Inspite of fighting "looth and nail," Onyango was convicted of both
offences and senicuced to a lifetime of ugali- madodo and hard labour at the Kamili
Maximum Suffering Centre. Onyango says, nay, swears, that the life of a Luopean is
"too sweet and precious" to be wasted at "a hell- hole" like Kamili. Accordingly, he
plans to appeal against both conviction and sentence. The Appeal, which he swears
will be "the mother of all battles", will turn on the relevance and admissibility of the
evidence adduced at the trial, and the decisions of the trial magistrate on the (cross)
examination of Miss Kinene and Cardinal Wanjohi. You are a sharp, willy and young
Nairobi lawyer, recently and competitively recruited into the litigation department of
the leading law firm in Kenya. Accordingly, predictably perhaps, Onyango seeks
your "brief and succinct" legal opinion on the viability of the intended appeal. Kindly
provide the required legal opinion.

Question 2:

How can the dangers, fears and concerus that underlic the rule against hearsay be
assuaged without excluding relevant and highly engent evidence?

Question 3:

"The law of evidence is founded apparently on the propositions that (i) all trial judges and
magistrates are deaf to reason; (ii) all witnesses are presumptively liars; and (iii) all
documents are presumptively forgerics. The law of evidence has been added to,
subtracted from and

Page 2 of 3
$

tinkered with for centuries until it has become less of a structure, than a pile of builders debris. We
should nonetheless yield to the law of evidence, because, in the main, the rules or evidnes are
just. In fact, there is no other branch of our law which ought more vigorously to ho upheld.
Our experience is that Kenyans have, on the whole, derived great benefits from the strict
application of the rules of evidence." - ANONYMOU2

Discuss.

Question 4:

Discuss concepts of public policy and privilege as applicable to the proof and disprove of
facts before Kenyan courts and the extent (if any) to which the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 has
tempered the application of these concepts.

Vretium 5:

Discuss the rule set out in Makin y Attorney General for New South Wales (1894) A.C. 57,
and the scope for adinission of evidence under the rule.
--------**#༧༧ཨཽ
 Page 3 of 3

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

SPECIAL/SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATIONS 2016/2017

SECOND YEAR EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACTIELOR OF LAWS

GPR 207: EVIDENCE LAW II

DATE 9TH AUGUST 2016

INSTRUCTIONS:

1.
(a) Answer QUESTION 1 and any other 2
questions.
TIMK: 2:00PM - 4:00PM

(b) Question I carries 33 marks. Each of the other questions carries 20 marks..
(c) Support each of your answers with relevant case law, statutory provisions and/or any
other relevant authorities.

(d) Keep your answers as precise and succinct as

possible.
(e) Marks may be lost on account of illegible handwriting, wordiness and/or
vagueness. (f) Your Answer Sheet must bear your Candidate Registration Number.

On 27.04.2008 at about 10.00 pan, Oliver was found by a police officer on the Kişumu-
 Nyalenda Road with serious chest injuries. They rushed him to Makini Habol Hospital.
Three hours later, he died. Lizza is charged with the murder. The prosecution calls Three witnesses:

(a) Mr. Munyonge, the hospital superintendent, who produces a postmortem report by
Dr. Wanderer to the effect that the deceased died as a result of excessive bleeding caused by
three stab wounds into the chest by a sharp object;

(b) Mr. Mdogo, the younger brother of the deceased, who will testify that a week before
his death, Oliver had indicated that he had a pending issue with Lizza, which issue
Lizza had been reluctant to solve, and this had strained their relationship; and

(c) Inspector Me Master, who will testify that the accused actually stabbed the deceased as per
a statement he recorded from the deceased at hospital. However, this statement was not
signed as the deceased died before signing the statement.

2.

3.

4.

5.
You have been retained to defend Lizza in this case. The prosecution has already
served you and your client with these statements. Your client is worried about the position.

Advise her on the legal issues likely to arise from his evidence and the likely position to be
taken by the court.

Discuss the occasions, and give the justification for when the prosecution may adduce
evidence of the accused's bad character under the Evidence Act Cap.80, Laws of
Kenya.

"The rule against hearsay is incapable of cogent rationalization. It is a mere technicality

which courts follow only in defence to statutory and/or judicial authority,”
Anonymous.

Discuss.

Mathayou was employed by Ujenzi Bora consultants Company Ltd., on 12#

Bebruary 1996 as a Quantity Surveyor. He executed his part of the Employment Contract,
retained one copy, and forwarded the other two to his employer. After two years and six
months he consults his advocate, Mzigo requesting him to sue for breach of
contract. This is prompted by the Company's failure to enhance his salary upwards by
"at least 40% as undertaken in their contract".

Upon being asked for the original he retorts, "I have conducted a cursory search at the
house, and could not find it" and continues, "all the same my wife has a photocopy which I
can furnish YOLL with instantaneously“

Mzigo consults you, as a Senior Counsel, on the admissibility in evidence of this photocopy.
Prepare a written brief.

"Cross-examination of the accused as to character is allowed both when imputations on the character of
the prosecutor and his witnesses are cast to show their unreliability as wilnesses
independently of the evidence given by them and also when the casting of such imputation
is necessary to enable the accused to establish bis defence..." Discuss
4

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
FIRST SEMESTER EXAMINATIONS – 2016/2017
SECOND YEAR EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF

DATE: JUNE 16, 2017

LAWS

GPR 215: LAW OF EVIDENCE

TIME: 2.00 P.M.-4.00 P.M.

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Answer Question ONE and TWO other Questions.

2. Support your answers with relevant case-laws, Statutory provisions and/or
relevant
Authorities.
3. Your answer sheet must bear your student Registration No.

I.
EVIDENCE

Achayo a life member of the ODM participated in the party primaries for nomination of
County Assembly (MCA) for Central Ward Siaya County alongside other II aspirants
including Abby.

The nomination primary were held on 25th April, 2017 and Achayo was not satisfied
that the same were free and fair as
i)
ODM Party Register of members was NOT used
ji)
There was late arrival of ballot boxes and papers
iii) The ballot boxes delivered had no lids, which led to ballot stuffing
iv) Abby using named vehicles ran away with the ballot
boxes
V)
There was double voting as when papers ran out, exercise books were used
vi) Abby's son was a clerk in a particular polling station
vii) No tallying of votes happened as this was
disrupted
he contended that his chief agent tabulated his votes to be 1160 voles as against 958 vales
 of Abby and had no idea how she was declared the winner.
He moved the Siaya County Appeals Tribunal which is the party's internal dispute
resolution mechanism which organ delivered its decision on 6/5/2017
dismissing Achayo's claim and declaring Abby duly elected ODM nomince of
Central Ward.
Dissatisfied he moved to the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal and by a decision read on
10/5/2017 they too dismissed his claim. He sought a review and introduced a letter
he intercepted made by the Registrar of Political Parties and addressed to the ODM

i
1

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS FOR THE 2013-2014

EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF LAWS GPR

207: EviDENCE II

TH

DATE: WEDNESDAY, 6"" AUGUST 2014

INSTRUCTIONS:

(a) Auswer QUESTION 1 and any other TWO questions.

·

TIME: 2:00–−1.00 P.M.

(b) (Question I carries 40 marks. Each of the other questions carries 15 marks. (c) Support each of your
answers with relevant case law, statutory provisions
 and/or any other relevant authorities.
(d) Marks may be lost for illegibility, wordiness or vagueness.
(e) Your Answer Sheet must bear your Candidate Registration
Number.

1 Suarez Wanugu, an avid fan of the movie The House of Lungida, was detained
incommunicado at Kitu Kidogo Police Station for 40 days and 40 nights. On
10th June 2013, a burly, squint-eyed, bow-legged and potbellied Chief Police
Inspector foshua Waiganjo secretly removed Suarez from police cells and "escorted
him to the laboratory section of the Sodom & Gonorrhea General Hospital. Upon arrival at
the said hospital, Suarez was ushered into a stuffy room full of medical paraphernalia-
including needles, pipettes, burettes, beakers, syringes, scissors, bowls and scalpels.
Suarez was "welcomed" into the stale room by a bespectacled, wrinkled, mean-looking,
white- aproned and grey-goateed Dr. Dracula Kiogothe. Suavez, who had always had a
morbid
· fear for hospitals and medical equipment, shook and trembled like a feeble-leaf on a windy day. Inspector
Waiganjo wrestled Suárez to the ground, handcuffed him and shackled his legs to restrain
any and all movement. Dr Dracula then connected a long needle to a transparent syringe and
drew several vials of blood from Suarez's left arm, in spite of the taller's turetenting protests,
wails and screams. Dr Dracula also forcibly opened Suarez's mouth with foul-smelling
dental equipment and used a spoon-like gadget to scoop mucal fluids and body tisane Suarez
was subsequently charged with the

1
offences of rape and indecent assault at the Kibera Law Courts. The particulars of the offences
alleged that Suarez had ravaged and touched the 'fiandomentals of a luscious and
voluptuous 'socialite and campus diva,' Miss Corazon Bonoko, on the dawn of 15t May
2012. The charge sheet further alleged that Surarez had 'burned' Corazon during The attack,
by infecting her with a discase the origins of which are attributed to the biblical cities of
Sodom and Gonorrhea. The prosecution evidence included a DNA Analysis Report from
the Government Chemist, tendered in evidence by a recently Fecruited police constable
Alejandro Kimaiyo. Constable Kimaiyo also tendered in evidence a pair of ton messy
thongs, a pink blouse and a brown-black miniskirt allegedly worn by Corazon on the
morning of the attack. Constable Kimaiyo testified that a forensic analysis of seminal
stains on these “Exhibits" revealed a DNA match with Suarez extensively cross- the blood and
body tissue samples taken from Suarez. examined Corazon on her "ignominious
reputation" within Parklands campus, and her frequent visits to high-end pleasure
joints and Nairobi's Koinange Street. Suarcz adduced in evidence video clips given to him
 by a local journalist on condition of secrecy as to source. The clips, which focused on city
council swoops on Nairobi's Koinange Strect, contained blurred images of skimpily
dressed lasses, one of whom had an uncanny resemblance to Corazon, standing along the
infamous street in the wee hours. Suarez also adduced in evidence Facebook and YouTube videos in
which Corazon appeared to "twerk" and advertise hei fundamentals' to the whole world.
Suarez testified that Corazon had actually consented to the alleged acts but had recently
fabricated her story at the behest of his business and political rivals, who had "poured a
lot of money" with a view to "finish" him. The trial magistrate then allowed the prosecution
to call Suarez's estranged wife as a witness. The estranged wife testified that Suarez was
an "an incorrigible thigh monger, philanderer and sex pest." The trial magistrate also
allowed the prosecution to adduce into evidence a written statement allegedly made by
Corazon at Kitu Kidogo Police Station several months before the commencement of the
trial, in spite of Suarez's objections as the admissibility of the statement and his claim that
the prosecution had refused to furnish him with copies of witness statements prior to the
commencement of the trial. In spite of fighting "tooth and nail,” Suarez was convicted of
both offences and sentenced to a lifetime of solitude, hard labour, wailing and gnashing of
teeth at the Kamiti Maximum Secmily Prison. Suarez says, nay, swears, that life is
"too sweet and precious" to be wasted al " godforsaken hole like Kamniti.”
Accordingly, he plans to appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appeal,
which Suarez swears will be "the mother of all battles,” will
1
!

turn on the relevance, admissibility and weight of the evidence adduced at the trial. You

are a promising young lawyer in Nairobi, recently and competitively recruited

into the litigation department of a leading law firm in Kenya. Accordingly,
predictably perhaps, Suarez seeks your “brief and succinct legal opinion'' on the
relevance, admissibility and weight of the contested evidence. Kindly provide the required
legal opinion.
2 "To require that a judge should affect a cloistered aloofness from facts that every other man
in court is fully aware of, and should insist on having proof on oath of such facts, is a
rule that may easily become pedantic and futile." Per Lord Summer in Commonwealth
& C, v Peninsular & C. [1923] A. C. 191 at p. 210.

Discuss the doctrine alluded to by the Learned Judge, and recent Kenyan, judges' opinions on the
doctrine.

3 Discuss the evidential issues arising from the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Nyeri) in
Dickson Mwenda Githinji v Gatiran Peter Munya & 2 Others [2014] ¢KLR.
In 2007, Olieno assigned a leasehold property in Diani by deed to a company whose shares were
 beneficially owned by Wambui. The assignment recited an Agreement for Sate and
Purchase and also contained a receipt clause in the following terms:

"In a consideration of the sum of Kshs.20,000,000.00 now paid by the

Company to Otieno, receipt and payment of which Otieno hereby

acknowledges, Otieno as the beneficial owner of the Property hereby assigns
under the Company all and singular the Premises...to hold the same unto the

Company for the unexpired residue of the Term..."

Although the receipt clause provided as aforesaid, in fact no payment of the purchase price was
made, Otieno and Wambui having been “friends with benefits" for many years. In
2010, Otieno died intestate, leaving behind a widow and several children. Otieno's

personal representatives have applied for letters of administration in respect of his estate.

They consider the unpaid purchase price a debt owed to the estate. The personal
representatives have listed the company among the estate's debtors, with a view to
recovering the Kshs.20,000,000.00 purchase price. The company denies that it is
indebted to the deceased's estate. You are one of the most eminent advocates in town,

right at the peak of your career. Accordingly, the company has sought your "brief and succinct
legal opinion on whether it is legally open to Otieno's personal representatives
to prove the alleged indebtedness. Kindly provide the required legal opinion.
5
"There is no mystery surrounding the often expressed reluctance to admit hearsay evidence
more widely. It is a continuation of the judicial preoccupation with three dangers said to be
associated with hearsay evidence... The question is, to what extent these fears should still
be heeded today, and how they can be assuaged without the necessity of excluding
much relevant and potentially cogent evidence.”
Murphy, P.
(1997) "Hearsay: The Road to Reform," I (2) International Journal of Evidence & Proof,
107-127 at p. 117.

Discuss the above dictum.

:
!
 2

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS 2013/2014
EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF LAWS (LLB)
GPR 207 (EyiDENCE II)

DATE: WEDNESDAY 23" APRIL 2014

INSTRUCTIONS:

(a) Answer Question I and any other two Questions.

TIME: 6:00 P.M.-8:00 P.M.

(b) Question I carries 30 Marks; each of the other questions carries 20 Marks.
(c) Support your answers with relevant case law, statutory provisions and/or any other relevant
authorities.
(d) Your Answer Sheet must bear your Student Registration
Number.
(e) Marks may be lost for illegibility, vagueness or wordiness.

QUESTION 1:

Below are the email extracts of an attached confidential agreement in brief:

From: G. S.
Sent: 28th October, 16:27
p.m.
To: EM

Subject: NDA Kenyà (Attachment)

Attachment: IJPG

Dear E.-M.,

Please find attached the confidentiality agreement to be signed before we start

discussing a future collaboration. This document is meant to protect you from us using
any data regarding your business and us from you using any information
Bitdefender. When we are discussing with a possible partner, he may be
informed about our prices and polices. If, for any reasons that company will not
become our partner, then we (as well as that company) are protected on the market. It
means we both agree not to "talk" to others about each other's business. Please also
show it to your managers so that they will know if they agree with such
documents. If okay sign and send back. Then, I will bring it to any General
 Manager, ask him to sign and send it to you to be signed. Once we have this we may
get into details regarding our possible collaboration.
Thank you,
G. S.

From: E. M.
To: G. S

Subject: NDA Scanned

Agreement
Attachments: [JPG, 2JPG, 3.JPG, 4JPG, SJPG
Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Dear G. S.,

Please find the scanned agreement duly signed and

stamped.
Best Regards,
B. M

ÅTTACHMENT: Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement

(NDA)
This Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement ("Agreement”) is made by
and between G. S. with its principal øddress os Fabrica de Glucoza Street, Sector
2, Bucharest, Romania (hereinafter referred to “BITDEFENDER”), duly
represented by FT as its General Manager;
And

E. M. with its principal address as 4" Floor Vedic House, Mama Ngina
Street, P. O. Box $28-00100 registered with the Government of the Republic of
Kenya; CeStificate of Incorporation No. 98627 duly represented by E. M. as its
Corporate Sales Manager (hereinafter referred to as “PARTNER")
NOWTHEREFORE for adequate and valuable consideration, the receipt of which
his hereby acknowledged the parties agree as follows...
TERM AND SURVIVAL
This Agreement shall be in force from the date the parties sign it and shall be valid
for a period of 3 years after the termination of the business relations between the
parties...

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement. G.S.
walks to your office with the above email correspondence and the attached confidentiality
agreement. G. S. claims that the confidentiality agreement has been breached and secks to
use the same on a hearing scheduled for next week. You peruse the agreement and attempt
 to strengthen your case for purposes of relevance and admissibility. As you 'brainstorm,' G.
8. states that he needs your "brief and succinct” legal opinion on each of the following
questions and issues:
(a) Does the law permit the use of email messages and attachments as evidentiary
material? (b) What conditions must one satisfy to guarantee the admissibility of electronic
documents
in evidence?

(c) Is the printout of the email correspondence primary or secondary

evidence?
(d) How do I go about ensuring admissibility of the confidentiality agreement
considering }
am unable to obtain the signed copy?
(e) What if I am able to trace the signed copy with electronic signatures appended on the
execution page? What must I do to ensure it is
admissible?
(1) In the course of the negotiations, you have noticed that there was an oral agreement
that the said document can be varied by partics orally at the convincing and this was followed by
an email line. As such, E. M. claims that the parties agreed that the document was only to
be binding for 3 months as that was the partics' intention. Will this averment be legally
tenable in the circumstances?
It is a requirement under section 106B of the Evidence Act that any proceedings where it
is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate shall be
given in evidence sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best knowledge of the person
stating it. Kindly draft the certificate as envisioned by section 106B, assuming you were G.
S. and intended to use the said document for a breach of confidentiality suit against E. M.
Į

QUESTION 2:

“A statement under the belief of impending death (dying declaration) is admissible

in
any criminal proceedings."
Anonymous.
Discuss the above dictum, supporting your arguments with decided cases and the relevant
provisions of the Evidence Act (Chapter 80 of the Laws of Kenya),
QUESTION 3:
 "An admission by an agent is never evidence in criminal as it sometimes is in civil cases.
In civil cases, the admission of an agent made in the course of his employment and in
accordance with his duty is binding upon the principal. But this has never been
extended to criminal cases. When a party is charged with the commission of an
offence through the instrumentality of his agent, then it becomes necessary to prove
the acts of his agent; and in some cases where the agent is dead, his admission is the
best evidence of these acts which can be proved." quoting from authority, p. 292.
Sakar,

Under what circumstances in the Evidence Act does an admission of a third party become binding on
a principal in civil cases"?
QUESTION 4:

The University of Nairobi School of Law is due to host an international symposium titled:
TRUTH AND ITS ATTAINMENT: EVIDENCE GOALS AND REFORM. You have been identified as
one of the resource persons on the topical discussion "The Art of Cross-Examination of Witnesses
within the Kenyan Legal Environment." Kindly prepare an informative critical paper noting all key
areas that lawyers need to focus on whilst at cross-examination.
QUESTION 5;

Daisy is charged with the murder of her husband, Victor. Incessant squawking from the
couple's parrot alerted Nancy (a neighbor) who found Victor on the floor, bleeding with a
Kitchen knife stuck in his chest. The deceased was clutching several red hairs in his right
hand. Nance called 999 and an ambulance arrived within moments. Victor diéd on the way to the
hospital. The prosecution's expert witness, Dr Science, testified at the trial that a microscopic
comparison of the hairs found in Victor's hand with Daisy's hair revealed a match. The following
additional evidence was introduced at the trial:
(a) Nancy's testimony offered by the prosecutor that the parrot said “Daisy did
it!”
(b) Nancy's testimony offered by the prosecutor that as she knelt by Victor's body he said
"I
never should have trusted that red-haired woman. She did me in"
(c) On cross-examination the defence counsel asked Nancy whether it was true that she
suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital last year.
Nancy's answer was “Yes.”
(d) On cross-examination, the defence counsel asked Nancy whether it is true that she was
convicted of a misdemeanor for trespassing in 2002. Nancy's answer was "Yes."
(e) The Investigating Officer's testimony offered by the prosecutor that when he informed
Daisy of her husband's murder, she laughed.
(1) Testimony offered by the defence from Daisy's hairdresser, Corazon, that Daisy is
bald, and that her red hair is actually a wig which she made for her from the hair of one of his
customers, Victor's girlfriend Lola.
 Assuming that proper objections were made, discuss the relevance and admissibility of each item of
evidence adduced at the trial.

3
-

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI ·
UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS FOR THE 2012-2013

SECOND YEAR EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DECREE OF BACHELOR OF LAWS

GPR 207; EVIDENCE II

DATE. FRIDAY 6TH SEPTEMBER 2013

TIME: 2:00 PM.-4.00 P.M.

INSTRUCTIONS:-

(a) Answer ANY THREE

questions.
(b) All questions carry equal marks.
(c) Support each of your answers with relevant case law, statutory
provisions and/or any other relevant authorities.
(d) Marks may be lost for illegibility, wordiness or
vagueness.
(e) Your Answer Sheet must bear your Candidate Registration Number.

“Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a
court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires the parties to that litigation to
bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special
circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in
respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in
contest, but which . was not brought forward only because they have, from
 négligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. The
plea....upplies, except in special case, not only to points upon which the court
was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce u
judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation
and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought
forward at the time” Wigram V-C in Henderson v Henderson (1843-
60] All ER Rep 378 at p. 382.
DISCUSS

2 Mr Kankkunen Njiru, a man renowned more for his unwavering love for frothy
beverages than his hard-to-beat prowess on the wheel, was convicted of the
offence of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to a lifetime of
wailing, teeth gnashing and hard labour at the Kamiti Maximum Suffering and
Correctional Centre. The deceased, a Mr. Jonnie Walker from Menushire, was
walking helter-skelter along Parklands Road on the fateful morning. The deceased
had just come from a long night of drink, dance,
Page 1 of 4
merry and raunchy trysts with a group of gorgeous "babes" commonly known
as "Campus Divas for Rich Men" at various pleasure joints in Nairobi, including
Wambugu's Beer & Merriment Den. The prosecution's evidence
consisted of the testimonies of Ms Zulfa'ahd Mr Nabéklyó, both
being “top law students" at The University of Nonsense (UoN). Also
adduced and admitted at the trial was the evidence law note book belonging to
a Mr Sining Prustus Kiliswa, another "top law student" at the UoN. Mr Kiliswa
had personally witnessed the act of dangerous driving and shortly given a
vivid narration of the horrific accident to beautiful Zulfa, telling her (inter alia)
that the car in question was red in colour. "It was moving at lightning speed!
Niliona kama ndrama! Kama vindio!" exclaimed Kiliswa. Mr Kiliswa, a good
student of not only the laws of Kenya but also Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion,
wrote short details of the accident at the back of the cover of his evidence law note
book. Zulfa reported to Nabenyo what Kiliswa had said to her. The prosecution tried,
in vain, to trace Mr Kiliswa so he could come and testify at the trial. Mr Kiliswa was
said to be marooned in some remote hamlets across "Ihe USA,” i.c. Ugenya, Siaya
and Alego. The prosecution was lucky, however, to get Mr Kiliswa's note
book from Zulla. Zulfa, who had difficulties in recollecting some of the details
narrated by Kiliswa, was allowed to use the note book to refresh her memory at the
trial. She testified that the colour of the car in question was crimson. Mr Nabenyo's
evidence, on the other hand, consisted largely of what Zulfa had told him a day
after the fatefulmorning. Mr Kankkunen had, in the cross-examination of Zulla
and Nabenyo, suggested that their testimonies had been recently fabricated, and
that the two had been "hired" by his business and political rivals to "finishhim.
Mr Kankkunen does not consider the Kamiti Maximum Suffering and
Correctional Centre a very exotic place. Kamiti is not, he says "Ihe sort of
address” he intends to spend the remainder of his "sweet-precious life." He now plans
to appeal against both conviction and sentence. We contends that the trial
magistrate gravely misdirected herself on the relevance and admissibility of the
evidence given at the trial. You are one of Nairobi's most eminent lawyers, just
"at the top of your game.” Accordingly, predictably perhaps, Mr Kankkunen
seeks your "brief and succinct” legal opinion on the relevance and admissibility
of the evidence adduced at the trial. He says he has been "vexed to no end,” and that
prevarication and unnecessary verbosity would not do much justice to the
intended appeal. Kindly provide the required legal opinion.

"A witness may not give his opinion on matters calling for the special skill or
knowledge of an expert unless he is an expert in such matters, and may not give
an opinion on other mailers if the underlying facts can be stated without reféreïice to
it ‚[Le. the witness' opinion] in a manner equally conducive to the ascertainment of
the truth." Tapper, C. (2010) Cross & Tapper on Evidence, 12th Edition, Oxford
University Press, New York at pp. 529-530.
DISCUSS

Page 2 of 4
The Hon. Rev. Dr. Andronicus Kiogothe, a conservative parent and stickler to
the good ways of yore, had for many years rebuked and reprimanded his wayward
son's obsession with bling-bling, make-up, perfumes and other "weird stuff." In
2007, on Fathers' Day, he informed the son that he was feeling "sufficiently
philanthropic" to grant any special request or gift. The son, a fanatical admirer of the
late Michael Jackson, opted for aesthetic surgery, to "straighten, sharpen and correct"
what he had always decried as a "flat and ugly" nose. Dr. Dracula Apollonia
Mak'Onyango, a distinguished Emeritus Professor of Reconstructive Surgery
at the University of Nonsense, was chosen to conduct the delicate operation.
Regrettably, the patient developed complications and kicked the bucket two days after
the operation. Dr. Dracula was then charged with homicide and criminal negligence.
When put on his defence, Dr. Dracula testified that he was a surgeon of "great
repute and professional standing." He also spent inuch time at the witness box
explaining "the highlights and milestones" of his "meteoric rise" in the medical
profession, including his progression from a junior surgeon to a consultant in just
three years and the "herculean feat" of acquiring a PhD in reconstructive
 surgery at the tender age of twenty eight years. Dr. Dracula also testified that he was a
conscientious man of firm morals and irreproachable professional integrity. The death
of Kiogothe Jnr., he further testified, was "only a minor aberration" in an otherwise
impeccable career. The trial magistrate then allowed the prosecution to cross-examine
Dr. Dracula on certain other patients who had died "in circumstances pointing to
palpable negligence" while undergoing aesthetic surgery at his hospital. The
magistrate further allowed the prosecution to call Miss Delilah Tamu Tamu, a
“saintly” Nairobi girl who sold wares on Koinange Street, to testify on certain illegal
operations that Dr. Dracula had allegedly performed to enable her and her colleagues
to "remain in business." In particular, Miss Delilah testified that Dr Dracula had
filled false diagnoses of colon tumours in medical forms in order to disguise illegal
abortions as genuine surgery. The prosecution also cross-
examined Dr· Dracula on certain complaints of unethical practices lodged against him
during the formative stages of his "stellar" career. A disgraced High Court judge,
a bosom friend of Dr. Dracula's, had issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the
Medical Practitioners and. Dentists Board from investigating the complaints. The trial
magistrate also admitted the damning testimony of two surgeons from a competing
nearby hospital, which had lost many patients to Dr. Dracula's hospital prior to the
commencement of the criminal proceedings. In spite of fighting "tooth and nail,"
Dr Dracula lost the criminal case on both counts. His appeals to the High Court and
the Court of Appeal were also unsuccessful. He now wishes to lodge a final appeal,
which he says will be the "mofler of all battles," to the Supreme Court. The intended
appeal, Dr Dracula says, hinges on certain "issues of evidence law. You are one of
Nairobi's most eminent lawyers. Accordingly, predictably perhaps, Dr. Dracula
seeks your "brief and succinct legal opinion on the aforesaid "issues of evidence
law.” Kindly provide the required legal opinion.

Page 3 of 4
5 "Any written thing capable of being evidence is properly described as a
document. It is immaterial on what the writing may be inscribed. It might
be inscribed on paper, as is the common case now. The common case once,
however, was that the writing was not on paper, but on parchment. Long before
that, the writing was invariably inscribed on stone, marble, or clay. It might
even have been, and often was, on metal. Today's equivalent of paper is
often a disc, a CD Rom, a Floppy Disk, a USB stick, a tape or even a film.
Today's equivalents of paper often convey information by symbols, codes,
formulue, diagrams and pictures as well as by words and numbers". Anonymous.
DISCUSS
 EMP

Page 4 of 4

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
SECOND SEMESTER EXAMINATIONS - 2012/2013

SECOND YEAR EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF

 DATE: MAY 24, 2013

INSTRUCTIONS:
LAWS

CPR 207: EVIDENCEH

a) Answer Question 1 and any other TWO questions.

TIME: 2.00PM ~ 4.00PM

b) Support your answers with relevant case Law, statutory provisions and/or any
other
relevant authorities.
c) Marks may be lost for unnecessary wordiness, irrelevance, illegibility or vagueness.
d) You Answer Sheet must bear your Candidate Registration Number.
£4

'Facts in issue and relevant facts are treated as established by the courts only in so far as
they are proved by evidence. To this general rule there are three exceptions." Kem, A.
(1996) The Modern Law of Evidence, 4" Edition, Butterworths, London, at
p. .
581.

Discuss the "three exceptions" alluded to in the above dictum.

(30 marks)

2.
Discuss the rule laid down in R v Rowton (1865) Le & Ca 520 C.C.R., and the extent to which the rule
has been adopted as part of Kenya's Evidence Law,
(20 marks)

3.
Write brief explanatory notes on each of the following;
a) The Best Evidence Rule.
b) Execution of Documents.
e) Attestation of Documents.
d) Computer outputs and printouts.
(5 marks)
(5 marks)
(5 marks)
 (5 marks)

4.
"When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted
another person to believe a thing to be time and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his
representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and
such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing. Moreover, it is for
the common good that there should be an end to litigation, and that no one should be
vexed twice on the same ground” Anonymous.
Discuss the legal principle(s) embodied in the above dictum.
(20 marks)

Page 1 of?

5.
"He who asserts is required to prove such fact by adducing credible evidence. If the party fails
to do so its case will fail. On the other hand, if the party succeeds in adducing
evidence to prove the pleaded fact it is said to have discharged the burden of proof
that rests on it. The burden is then said to have shifted to the party's adversary to prove
that the fact established by the evidence adduced could not ... result in the court giving
judgement in favour of the party" Mutunga CJ, Tunoi, Ibrahim, Ojwang, Wanjala
and Njoki JJSC in Raila Odinga & Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries
Commission & Others, [2013] eKLR at para 193.

Discuss.
(20 marks)

END
 Page 2 of 2

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
MODULE II PROGRAMME – 2011/2012 (DAY AND EVENING)
(NAIROBI)
SECOND YEAR EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF LAWS

DATE: MAY 28, 2012

ISTRUCTIONS:
GPR 207 : EVIDENCE JI

TIME: 6.00PM -- 8.00PM

(a) Answer Question ONE and any other TWO questions

(b) Question ONE is Compulsory
(c) Support each of your answers with relevant case law, statutory provisions and/or any
other
relevant authorities
(d) Marks may be lost for illegibility or vagueness
Your answer sheet must bear your Student Registration
Number.
QUESTION ONE
‫التالي الياك ان العالمات ال تمت استعادة‬

: nav===་་་

"The elucidation' of facts by means of questions put by the parties or their

representatives to vitnesses mainly summoned by them and called mainly in the order of their
choice before a idge, acting as an umpire rather than an inquisitor has been an
essential feature of the English 'md Kenyan] 'adversarial' or accusatorial system of
justice."- Tapper, C. (2010) Cross & apper on Evidence, 12" Edition, Oxford
University Press, New York, at p.272.
r

scuss the rules governing the course of evidence alluded to by the eminent
author.
JESTION TWO

ite brief explanatory notes on each of the following:

(30 marks)

The rule set out at Section 125 of the Kenyan Evidence Act The
rule set out at Section 127 of the Kenyan Evidence Act.
(4 marks)
(4 marks)
Corroboration of Evidence.

(4 marks)
Bankers' Books

(4 marks)
Insane and dumb witnesses

(4 marks)

}
-

QUESTION THREE

"The general rule is that a party seeking to rely on the contents of a document must
adduce primary evidence of those contents." --- Kean, A. (1996) The Modern Law of
Evidence, 4th Edition, Butterworths, London at p. 201.
#

Discuss the above mentioned general rule and the exceptions

thereto.
(20 marks)

QUESTION FOUR
 "Evidence is not admissible in reply to evidence of good character. Thai point was
decided in Regina v Burt (5 Cox, Crim. Cas. 284), where witnesses were called to give the
prisoner a general good character, it was not competent to the prosecution to call witnesses
in reply to give evidence of the prisoner's general bad character. Such evidence is
inadmissible on the broad principle that character forms ve part of the issue on the record?”
– Mr. Sleigh (for the Appellant) in (1865) LE & CA 1498 at p. 1499.

Discuss the Learned Counsel's submission in the context of the modern Law of evidence.
(20 marks)
'

QUESTION FIVE

Mr Domiciano Caunmissasius, a Maverick, wizened and grey-haired octogenarian from Kabeteshire,

is the Electoral Commission's witness in a long, tortuous and "bare-knuckled" fight in an election
petition filed at the High Court of Kenya at Port Florence. By the year 2007, Mr.
Cammissasius had not only retired from public service, having left a Largele ignoble
legacy, but also long reached his "sell-by date." Written policy guidelines issued by the
Electoral Commission prior to the 2007 General Election forbid the recruitment of
electoral officers whose age exceeded the set limit of sixty years. In spite of those
policy guidelines, Mr Cammissasius somehow, inexplicably, secured an appointment to the
position of Returning Officer in a populous constituency during the disputed 2007 general
election. The appointment was, officially, explained on his "invaluable experience and
unparalleled knowledge on matters relating to electoral contests.” His detractors immediately
"cried foul", saying that Mr. Cammissasius' ignoble and controversial tenure as the bead of the
National Security Intelligence Service and the Special Branch made him unsuitable for the
job. The "cries", however, fell on deaf ears, as the Electoral Commission “stuck to its guns". It
was also "loudly rumoured”“” that
· Mr. Camissasius was actually recruited to oversee the implementation of the (in)famous
Kenyan electoral invention new commonly known as "toping-up." The "rumour mills" further say that
Mr. Camissasius was the original author of the so-called Mlolongo system of voting, another
Kenyan invention famed for starting the clamour for comprehensive constitutional and
legal reforms in Kenya during the carly 1990s. Questions have been raised in the election
court relating to the exccution and attestation of three critical documents, namely Form 16A,
form 17A and Form 17. Although Mr. Campissasius claims to have signed all the three
documents, the petitioner complains, the signatures appearing on the documents are "as
different as day is from night." Mr. Canumissasius says that the petitioner's story is "full of
sound and fury but lacking in substance, the sort of story no mally told by a fool,” In
particular, Mr Cammissasius bas told the election court "not to read too much" into the different
signatures, as they are all his

gemine signatures. The signature on Form 16A, he says, is the one appearing on his
National Identity Card. The signature on Form 17A is the one appearing on his passport. The
signature on Form 17, Mr. Cammissssius further contends, is the one appearing on his driving
License. The petitioner's advocate is not at all impressed by Mr. Cammissasius' lies, which he asks
him to "tell it to the birds". Accordingly, the petitioner's advocate asks Mr. Cammissasius to
give his I.D., passport and driving license to the court so that the court can compare the
signatures thereon with the ones in issue, Mr. Cammissasius says he lost his I.D. and passport
during the post-election violence, and that his driving license was stolen in an unfortunate
car-jacking incident three days prior to the trial. Undeterred to "shred the witness' credibility",
the advocate has made an application seeking to compel Mr. Cammissasius to sign the
signatures appearing on his L.D., passport and driving license on a clean sheet of paper, so that
the court can verify his claim of having three signatures. The Electoral Commission is worried
that its case would "collapse" if Mc Cammissasius were to be ordered to sign each of his alleged
three signatures on a clean sheet of paper as sought. Accordingly, the Electoral
Commission seeks your "brief and succinct” legal opinion on the issues at hand, including the
applicable statutory rules and how courts have previously handled similar situations. Kindly
provide the required legal opinion.
(20 marks)

END-

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS 2011/2012
SECOND YEAR EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF LAWS GPR 207; EVIDENCE
II
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2012
TIME: 9.00 A.M.-11.00 A.M.

Answer Question ONE (1) and any other TWO (2) Questions
INSTRUCTIONS
(a)
(b)
 (c)
Marks may be lost for illegibility or vagueness
(d)

1.
Support each of your answers with relevant case law, statutory provisions and/or any other
relevant authorities

Your Answer Sheet must bear your Student Registration Number

だ

be
"The rule against hearsay is fundamental. Sometimes, however, the rule can
cibsurdly technical.
It can
operate to exclude highly cogent evidence. Accordingly,
it is perhaps not surprising that both bar and bench alike have employed a variety of
devices with 0 view to evasion of the rule".
Anonymous.
Discuss the above dictum, the “devices" alluded to and the extent to which those "devices"
have been codified into Kenya's Evidence Act (Chapter 80 of the Laws of Kenya).
[30 marks]
2.
Briefly outline the rules governing each of the following:
(a)
Refreshing of memory
[4 marks]
(b)
Previous consistent or self-serving statements
[4 marks]
(c)
Hostile and unfavourable witnesses
[4 marks]
(d)
The scope of cross-examination
[4 marks]
(e)
Leading Questions
[4 marks]
3:
4.
"As a general rule, extrinsic evidence (often referred to as 'parol evidence' because it is
usually oral, although it may consist of other documents) is inadmissible where it
would, if accepted, have certain effects on the terms of a judicial record, a
transaction required by law to be in writing, or a document constituting a valid and effect
contract, or other transaction". Discuss.
Anonymous.
[20 marks]
“At common law, there were numerous hurdles which prevented a wide variety of
persons from giving relevant evidence. Most of the hurdles have been removed by
judicial and statutory reform, but some persist to the modern day".
Discuss.
Anonymous.

(20 marks]

5.
The Hon Rev. Dr. Andronicus Kiogothe, a conservative parent and stickler to good ways
of yore, had for many years rebuked and reprimanded his wayward son's obsession
with bling-bling, make-up, perfumes and other "weird stuff". In 2007, on Fathers'
Day, he informed the son that he was feeling "sufficiently philanthropic" to grant
any special request or gift. The son, a fanatical admirer of the late Michael
Jackson, opted for aesthetic surgery to "straighten, sharpen and correct" what he
had always decried as a "flat and ugly" nose. Dr. Dracula Apollonia Mark' Onyango, a
distinguished Emeritus Professor of Reconstructive surgery at the University of
Nonsense, was chosen to conduct the delicate operation. Regrettably, the patient
developed complications and kicked the bucket two days after the operation.
Dr. Dracula was then charged with homicide and criminal negligence. When put on
his defence, Dr. Dracula testified that he was a surgeon of “great repute and
professional standing". He also spent much time at the witness box explaining "the
highlights and milestones" of his "meteoric rise" in the medical profession,
including his progression from a junior surgeon to a consultant in just three years
and the 'herculean feat" of acquiring a PhD in reconstructive surgery at the tender
age of twenty eight years. Dr. Dracula also testified that he was a conscientious
man of firm morals and irreproachable professional integrity. The death of
Kiogothe Jnr., he further testified, was “only a minor aberration" in an otherwise
impeccable career. The trial magistrate then allowed the prosecution to cross-
examine Dr. Dracula on certain other patients who had died "in circumstances
pointing to palpable negligence" while undergoing aesthetic surgery at his
hospital. The trial magistrate also allowed the prosecution to call Miss Delilah
Tamu Tamu, a "saintly" Nairobi girl who sold wares on Koinange Street, to
testify on certain illegal operations that Dr. Dracula had allegedly performed to
enable her and her colleagues to "remain in business”. In particular, Miss Delilah
testified that Dr. Dracula had filled false diagnoses to disguise illegal abortions as
genuine surgery. The prosecution also cross- examined Dr. Dracula on certain
complaints of unethical practices lodged against him during the formative stages
of his "stellar" career. A disgraced High Court judge, a bosom friend of Dr.
Dracula's. had issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the Medical Practioners and
Dentists Board from investigating the complaints. The trial magistrate also
admitted the damning testimony of two surgeons from a nearby hospital, which had
lost many patients to Dr. Dracula's clinic prior to the commencement of the
criminal proceedings. In spite of fighting "tooth and nail", Dr. Dracula lost the
criminal case on both counts. His appeals to the High Court and the Court of Appeal
were unsuccessful. He now wishes to lodge a final appeal, which he says will be the
"mother of all battles,” to the newly established Supreme Court.

The intended appeal, Dr. Dracula says, hinges on “certain issues of evidence
law”. You are one of Nairobi's most eminent lawyers, just "at the top of your
game”. Accordingly, predictably perhaps, Dr. Dracula seeks your “brief and
succinct” Legal opinion on the aforesaid "issues of evidence law". Dr. Dracula
says he has been "vexed to no end", and that prevarication and unnecessary
verbosity would not do much justice to the appeal. Kindly provide the required
legal opinion.
*

(20 marks]

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
SPECIAL/SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATIONS 2011/2012

SECOND YEAR EXAMINATIONS FOR THE DEGREE RACIIELOR OF

LAWS.

GPR 207: EVIDENCE I

DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2012

TIME: 9.00, A.M. - 11.00. A.M.
 INSTRUCTIONS ANSWER QUESTION ONE AND TWO OTHER
QUESTIONS

1. a) Palent ambiguity rule is the comerstone of documentary evidence. Discuss the

meaning and justification of the patent ambiguity rule while closely
distinguishing the same from the latent ambiguity rule.
b). The best evidence rule is antithesis to the hearsay rule. Discuss the concept
of
the "Best Evidence Rule".
[20 marks]

2. Evidence of disposition and reputation are generally inadmissible.

Define
disposition and reputation while illustrating the exception to the rules on
inadmissibility.
[25 marks]

3. Electronic evidence is inadmissible. Discuss this statement in the light of relevant

provisions of the Evidence Act.
[25 marks]

[25 marks]
4. Corroboration is an essential requirement in certain categories of evidence.
Discuss.

5. A fact is proved either by direct evidence or irrebutable presumptions or

through
operation of estoppel.

(a) Discuss the types of presumptions under the Evidence Act. Give the rationale
for each presumption.
(b) Discuss the categories of estoppel under the Evidence Act.
[25 marks]
$