<p class="ql-align-center">JUDGMENT OF THE COURT</p><p class="ql-align-justify">There is one aspect of the trial which renders it defective. The summing up by the learned trial judge in this trial where all the appellants were charged with the serious crime of murder after a lengthy trial, occupies only a page. The summing up was a farce. It did not give the assessors who were laymen, any guidance whatsoever as to the facts or the law. As was said in Washington s/o Odindo v. Republic (1954) 21 EACA 392, the assessors did not have the &quot;benefit of a careful summing up&quot;. The role of the assessors so defined by section 262 of the Criminal Procedure Code namely, that:</p><p class="ql-align-justify">&quot;All trials before the High Court shall be with the aid of assessors&quot;,was in this case rendered nugatory by the learned judge&#x27;s unhelpful summing up. In fact it can be said that he did not sum up at all to the assessors which makes the trial fatally defective. See Kenya Kaingu Mweni, Kamisi Katanga and Karisa Chengo v. Republic Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1997 (unreported).</p><p class="ql-align-justify">Apart from th…</p>