[1985] KECA 145 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was entitled to summarily reject the appellant's first appeal under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code if it was satisfied that there was no sufficient ground for interfering with the conviction. The evidence showed that the appellant was found in possession of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1985] KECA 145 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Dan Ologi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 155 of 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Summary Rejection of First Appeal by High Court
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Handling Stolen Property, Stealing, Criminal Procedure, Summary Rejection of Appeal
- 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
Dan Ologi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Summary Rejection of First Appeal by High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court erred in summarily rejecting the appellant's first appeal under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the evidence supported the conviction for handling stolen property contrary to section 322(2) of the Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was entitled to summarily reject the appellant's first appeal under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code if it was satisfied that there was no sufficient ground for interfering with the conviction. The evidence showed that the appellant was found in possession of the stolen typewriter shortly after the theft and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The trial court's conviction for handling stolen property was supported by the doctrine of recent possession. The summary rejection of the appeal was therefore not improper, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction and sentence of the trial court are upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT MOMBASA
(Coram: Masime, J.A., Gicheru & Kwach, Ag. JJ.A.)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 155 OF 1988
BETWEEN
DAN OLOGI...............................................APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC................................................RESPONDENT
(Appeal from an order of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Aragon, J.) dated 30th April, 1986 in
H.C.CR. APPEAL NO. 402 OF 1985)
*********************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:
The appellant's first appeal to the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa was summarily rejected by Aragon, J. under Section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He had been charged in the court of first instance with the offence of stealing contrary to section 275 of the Penal Code and with an alternative count of handling stolen property contrary to section 322(2) of the same Code.
The subject-matter of stealing and/or handling was a typewriter belonging to Dansons Agencies whose office is situated along Moi Avenue, Mombasa. Its value was about Shs. 15,000/-. This typewriter was stolen on 19th March, 1985 after 4. 00 p.m. but before 5. 00 p.m. At the latter time, the appellant and another were in possession of the typewrite. At this time, the appellant and another were in possession of the typewriter. At this time, the appellant asked Peter Mukura Chege 9P.W.2), a receptionist with the Splendid Hotel, Mombasa, to keep the typewriter for them. The appellant was known to this receptionist as he was a customer to the aforesaid Hotel. He and his companion were to collect the said typewriter which was in a carton on the same day.
Indeed, at about 9. 00 p.m. on the same day, the appellant picked up the typewriter. On 20th March, 1985 at about 11. 00 a.m. this typewriter in its carton was found by Joseph Wambua Kinyosi 9P.W.3), a supervisor with the Hotel mentioned above, besides the door steps to the bar of the said Hotel. This supervisor handed it to the Hotel's Managing Director who kept it in a store at the Hotel. On 29th May, 1985 the appellant was arrested. On the same day, he led the police to the aforementioned Hotel where it (typewriter) was recovered.
On this evidence, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence of handling stolen property contrary to section 322 (2) of the Penal Code and sentenced him to 7 years imprisonment with hard labour