JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appellant was charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence, the accused was charged with were that the accused jointly with others not before the court, being armed with dangerous weapons, namely, knives, robbed one Daniel Okello Omar of Kshs.2,000/= and a wrist watch and at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery used actual violence against the said DanieTlh eO keclolmop lOamianra.nt gave evidence before the magistrate's court respecting the fact that the number of his attackers were four. Both the trial magistrate and the High Court Judges who heard his first appeal all accepted that evidence.
But before us, the appellant sought to cast doubt on those findings. This being a second appeal, this court has no jurisdiction and will not concern itself with matters of facts which in any event, have been properly accepted by the trial magistrate and the supe…