[2018] KEHC 296 (KLR)
The High Court found that the prosecution's evidence, particularly from the company director, auditor, and investigating officers, was cogent and corroborated, establishing that the appellant committed the offence of stealing by servant. The appellant's defense that she was not the only one with access to the phone...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 296 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Dorcas Akola Akhonya; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 48 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction upheld; sentence reviewed to period served; appellant set at liberty
- Judges
- AC Mrima, DO Ohungo
- Legal Topics
- Stealing by Servant, Burden of Proof, Appellate Review, Sentencing Principles
- 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
Dorcas Akola Akhonya
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution proved the offence of stealing by servant against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
- 2 Whether the conviction and sentence by the trial court were proper in law.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the prosecution's evidence, particularly from the company director, auditor, and investigating officers, was cogent and corroborated, establishing that the appellant committed the offence of stealing by servant. The appellant's defense that she was not the only one with access to the phone and money was not credible in light of the evidence. The conviction was therefore upheld. However, considering the appellant's mitigation, her health status, and the period already served in prison, the court exercised discretion to review the sentence to the period already served, finding that the appellant had learned her lesson and should be given an opportunity to rebuild...
Court Disposition
conviction upheld; sentence reviewed to period served; appellant set at liberty
Orders
- The appeal on conviction is dismissed.
- The sentence is reviewed to the period already served.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2017
DORCAS AKOLA AKHONYA..............APPELLANT
-versus-
REPUBLIC...........................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal arising from the conviction and sentence by Hon. C. O. Obulutsa, Chief Magistrate in Eldoret Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 5082 of 2015 delivered on 30/09/2016)
JUDGMENT
1. The Appellant herein, Dorcas Akola Akhonya,was employed by Life Care Pharmaceutical Limited as a Cashier. She was charged with the offence of Stealing by servant contrary to Section 281 of the Penal Code, Cap. 63 of the Laws of Kenya. She was subsequently tried, found guilty, convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment.
2. The prosecution availed four witnesses in support of its case. The witnesses were the Company’s Director one Dr. Muriithi Isaac Mburu (PW1), Kelly Mutai Rop (PW2),a Certified Public Accountant who audited the company’s accounts and prepared a report on the loss of Kshs. 2,492,064/=, No. 224530 PC Simon Bitok (PW3)of Criminal Investigation Unit of National Police Service attached at Safaricom Headquarters as a Liaison officer who availed MPesa statements on the questioned transactions. No. 51657 Corp. John Imbayaof the CID Eldoret (PW4) was the investigating officer. The Appellant was placed on her defence and tendered a sworn defence.
3. Being dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the Appellant lodged an appeal with the leave of the Court. The appeal was heard by way of written submissions on the part of the Appellant and the State made oral submissions. The Appellant mainly contended that the charge was not proved since she was not the only one who handled the company phone and the money. The appeal was opposed. Counsel for the State, Miss Mokuaurged this Court to dismiss the appeal.
4. The role of this Court as the first appellate Court is well settled. It was held in the case of Okemo vs. R (1977) EALR 32 and further in the Court of Appeal case of Mark Oiruri Mose vs. R (2013) eKLR that this Court is duty bound to revisit the evidence tendered before the trial court afresh, evaluate it, analyze it and come to its own independent conclusion on the matter but always bearing in mind that the trial court had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and hearing them give evidence and give allowance for that.
5. In line with the foregoing, this Court in determining this appeal is to satisfy itself that the ingredients of the offence of Stealing by servant was proved and as so required in law; beyond any reasonable doubt. Needless to say, I have carefully read and understood the proceedings and the judgment of the trial court as well as the record before this Court and also the submissions.
6. The totality of the prosecution’s evidence is that it was the Appellant who committed the offence. The evidence of PW1 was congently corroborated by that of PW2, PW3 and PW4. There was evidence showing that all the disputed entries were transacted by the Appellant and the contention that the Appellant was not the only one who handled the phone and money and that she was framed did not lie. The Appellant was rightly found guilty and convicted. The appeal on the conviction is hereby dismissed.
7. As to the sentence, I have considered the mitigations tendered as well as the various medical documents filed on 05/09/2018 on the Appellant’s current health status. Whereas the sentence handed down is lawful, I am persuaded that the Appellant has by now learnt her lesson and ought to be accorded an opportunity to put together her life once again. As an ailing mother of two children who has been in prison for two years, I hereby review the sentence to the period already served. The Appellant is hereby set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held. It is so ordered.
SIGNED BY:
A. C. MRIMA
JUDGE
DATED, COUNTERSIGNED and DELIVERED at ELDORET this 1st day of November, 2018.
H. A. OMONDI
JUDGE