This court found that the trial was therefore
irregular, unlawful and null and void in
respect of count one which was brought under
the repealed Section 268, count two, which
was brought under Section 87 also repealed
and count three bought under the repealed
Section 326 of the Penal Code Act. This court
held that this ground of appeal therefore
succeeds.
However, the court also found that the
appellant was properly charged and tried in
respect of counts 4 and 5 for offences
committed under Sections 342, 345 and 347
of the Penal Code which were not repealed by
Section 69 of the Anti-corruption Act and
which continue to exist under the Penal Code
Act. The court held that Ground two of appeal
therefore fails.
The court further added that “Either party to
an appeal from a Magistrate’s Court may
appeal against the decisions of the High
Court in its appellate jurisdiction to the court
of appeal on a matter of law not including
severity of sentence, but not on a matter of
fact or of mixed fact and law”
This court held that Grounds 4, 5 and 7
therefore fail on that account.

The court found that the appellant was denied
a fair trial and that the whole trial was
conducted in contravention of Article 28 (1)
(3) (a), (c), (d) and (g) of the Constitution.
In result, the court found that the whole trial
was a nullity and we hold so this ground of
appeal also succeeds.