[2014] KEHC 7958 (KLR)
The High Court found that the appellant, a 14-year-old minor, gave a plausible explanation for his possession of the stolen items, namely that he was asked by an adult to ferry them and was promised a small payment. The trial magistrate failed to provide adequate reasons for dismissing this defence and did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 7958 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: E O; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 374 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Handling Stolen Goods, Doctrine of Recent Possession, Criminal Liability of Minors
- 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
E O
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction of the appellant for handling stolen goods was supported by evidence.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate properly considered the defence of the minor appellant.
- 3 Whether the doctrine of recent possession was properly applied to the appellant, a minor.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the appellant, a 14-year-old minor, gave a plausible explanation for his possession of the stolen items, namely that he was asked by an adult to ferry them and was promised a small payment. The trial magistrate failed to provide adequate reasons for dismissing this defence and did not address how the minor should have known the goods were stolen. The doctrine of recent possession did not connect the appellant to the offence, and there was no evidence to justify his conviction. The prosecution's case did not contradict the appellant's account, and the circumstances suggested he should have been treated as a prosecution witness rather than an accused. Consequently,...
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The conviction is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 374 OF 2008
E O …………………......................……………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………………………………… RESPONDENT
(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case Number 610 of 2006 in the Chief magistrate’s court at Makadara before K. Muneeni (SRM) on 28th July, 2008)
JUDGMENT
The appellant E O was charged jointly with another in count I with the offence of Robbery with Violence contrary to Section 292 (2) of the Penal code. In count II he was charged jointly with another with the offence of theft of Motor vehicle parts contrary to Section 279 (g) of the Penal Code.
In the alternative to count II, the appellant was charged alone with the offence of handling stolen goods contrary to Section 322 of the Penal Code. He denied all the offences but after a full trial he was convicted of the offence of handling stolen goods contrary to Section 322 of the Penal Code.
At the time of conviction he was aged 14 years old and following a probation’s officers report, he was placed on 3 years probation. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence he filed this appeal.
The evidence adduced before the learned trial magistrate was that the appellant was arrested alongside three adults while he was ferrying a motor vehicle gear box and a gurtridge. One of the adults escaped but two ended up with him at Huruma Police Post. Subsequently the two adults were released in circumstances that were not explained to the court.
The appellant explained in his defence that he was approached by one Victor Omondi to use the family wheelbarrow to ferry the said items. He was even promised Kshs. 100/=. The learned trial magistrate dismissed that defence saying that the appellant should have known the items were stolen. What the learned trial magistrate did not address himself to is how the minor should have known the said goods were stolen. His defence was also not contradicted by any other evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses.
My assessment of the evidence is that the appellant gave a plausible explanation and the learned trial magistrate should not have dismissed his defence without giving good reasons.
The learned counsel for the republic concedes this appeal and with respect, I agree. The doctrine of recent possession did not connect the appellant with the offence at all. It was not possible for the appellant who was a minor to interrogate the adults who approached him to use the family wheelbarrow in this exercise. If anything the appellant should have been treated as a prosecution witnesses. There was no evidence whatsoever to justify the conviction of the appellant.
Accordingly this appeal is allowed, conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Orders accordingly.
SIGNED DATEDandDELIVEREDin court this 11thday of June 2014.
A.MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE