The alleged victim of a false rape case that caught the attention of the Nation has been served a heavy blow by the Court of Appeal which as denied Julius Wambua Musyoki’s application to introduce his daughter’s evidence as an appeal.
A heartbreaking feature was aired on how Julius has already served 10 years at the Kamiti Maximum Prison, and after a chilling confession from his daughter, he hoped that the journey of being a free man has begun
However a three-judge bench led by Appellate Court president, William Ouko, Wanjoru Karanja and Jamila Mohamed declined the application by Wambua on the basis that the request is time barred and that the court-set timelines for filing and producing evidence had already lapsed.
In his appeal, Wambua through his advocates, Cyrus Maweu and Mike Mwema, argued that that the rape victim, who was the prosecution key witness, and is Wambua’s daughter, recanted her evidence, hence Wambua wanted the court to consider the change of events.
His troubles all started when he divorced his first wife in 2007 following disagreements over land and married a second wife.
Lulu Hassan then reached out to the said girl Dorcas through the contacts of the convict’s relatives from his court file and, when she arrived at the prison and met her father for the first time in a decade, there was pin-drop silence in the visitor’s bay as emotions ran high.
“My mother did not like the woman you met after you left her because she (mother) thought that she (new wife) would be the one to inherit your property. So she came up with the plan to have you sent to jail so that she could sell your property and inherit your wealth,” narrated Dorcas to her father.
“She (mother) called me aside and told me that, because dad had married another woman, she would use me to send him to jail.”
The girl added that her mother then called a friend of hers and the three of them went to a nearby hospital where presumed medical documents/reports were forged.
Wambua, through his advocates, argued that the court convicted him despite the discrepancy on the doctor’s report.
The court heard that the medical examination date to ascertain defilement of the then-10-year-old girl preceded the date of the defilement.