[2004] KEHC 1062 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate convicted and sentenced the appellant on counts not supported by the charge sheet, as only 12 counts were evident while the judgment referred to 15. The prosecution failed to prove each count beyond reasonable doubt, with convictions entered even where complainants did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1062 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Benjamin Mitema Onchiri; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 51 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; convictions quashed; sentences set aside; appellant to be released unless otherwise lawfully detained
- Legal Topics
- Making Document Without Authority, Stealing by Clerk, Double Jeopardy, Defective Charge Sheet
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Benjamin Mitema Onchiri
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction and sentence on counts not supported by the charge sheet were lawful.
- 2 Whether the prosecution proved each count beyond reasonable doubt.
- 3 Whether the adverse comment on the appellant's wife not testifying was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate convicted and sentenced the appellant on counts not supported by the charge sheet, as only 12 counts were evident while the judgment referred to 15. The prosecution failed to prove each count beyond reasonable doubt, with convictions entered even where complainants did not testify. The trial magistrate improperly made adverse comments regarding the appellant's wife not testifying, contrary to the law. Furthermore, the last count, charging the appellant with stealing the total sum alleged in the previous counts, was not framed as an alternative count, exposing the appellant to double jeopardy and rendering the charge defective. Consequently, the...
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; convictions quashed; sentences set aside; appellant to be released unless otherwise lawfully detained
Orders
- The appeal is allowed in its entirety.
- The conviction of the appellant on each count is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 51 OF 1997
BENJAMIN MITEMA ONCHIRI…………………........…………………….APPELLANT
versus
REPUBLIC ………………………………………………………..……..RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the judgment and sentence of the Senior Principal
Magistrate’s court at Nyeri, delivered by Njuguna
Kimani, Senior Resident
Magistrate, dated 19 th November, 1996, in
Criminal Case No. 2620 of 1992)
JUDGMENT
The Appellant was charged in eleven counts each alleging the offence of making a document without authority contrary to section 357(a) of the Penal Code. He was an employee of Kenya Commercial Bank Nyeri Branch and particulars alleged that with intent to defraud, and without lawful authority or excuse the appellant made credit transfers of Kenya Commercial Bank for various amounts of money purporting to be a credit transfer made with the authority of various complainants on various dates.
There was count twelve where the Appellant was charged with stealing by clerk contrary to section 281 of the Penal Code. Particulars stated that on divers days between March 1990 and December 1990 in Nyeri Town in Nyeri District, being clerk to Kenya Commercial Bank Nyeri, the Appellant stole from the said Bank a total of Kshs.249,000. That was the total sum of money whose transfers the Appellant was alleged to have effected in counts one to eleven.
In his judgment the learned trial Magistrate talked of 15 counts but I have not been able to see that number of counts. The sentence related to counts 1 to 15. I have not been able to see those counts.
On each count the appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment. The sentencing were ordered to run concurrently.
Grounds of appeal were 11 and Mrs. Mukuha, Counsel for the Appellant, argued them during the hearing of this appeal in which she raised a number of issues. State Counsel, M/s Ngalyuka, opposed the appeal maintaining that there was nothing wrong and that the appellant was properly convicted and sentenced.
I do not intend to go into details as I only need to point out that this was a good case the prosecution could have easily handled successfully. But somehow case was not handled properly. I have said I have not been able to see the 15 counts the trial Magistrate was talking about. I have seen only 12. Yet the Magistrate convicted and sentenced the Appellant on 15 counts.
Each count ought to have proved beyond reasonable doubt. But neither the Prosecutor nor the trial Magistrate ensured that was done and as a result even in counts where the alleged complainant did not appear before the trial Magistrate to give evidence, the counts were taken to have been proved and the appellant convicted.
Then there was the issue of the evidence of the wife of the Appellant. She was to have been a witness but because she is a wife of the Appellant, she did not give evidence against the Appellant. Under the law the prosecution ought not to have counted on her evidence. But somehow, they still expected to call her as a witness. When she failed to give evidence therefore, that formed the basis of adverse comment by the learned trial magistrate in his judgment against the appellant.
Lastly, the last count, whether the counts were 12 or 15, was a count where the appellant was charged with the offence of stealing the sum total of the money alleged transferred as seen in counts 1 to 11, where the counts are 12, or counts 1 to 14 where the counts are 15. Lawfully therefore, the last count in each case should have been on alternative count and not one of the substantive counts. Since that count was not in the alternative, the charge was defective as the Appellant faced double jeopardy.
From the above therefore, I do hereby allow the appeal of the Appellant in its entirely. The conviction of the appellant on each Count, whether 12 or 15, is hereby quashed and the sentence imposed on each count set aside.
The Appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless lawfully detained in some other cause.
Dated this 20th day of December, 2004.
J. M. KHAMONI
Judge