[2015] KEHC 2862 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 2862 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant presented a forged cheque to the bank, with the payee altered from Agridat Kenya Ltd to Jabwa Agencies, an account belonging to the appellant. The authorized signatories denied countersigning the alteration, and the appellant's explanation regarding the origin of the cheque was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 2862 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: John Oucho; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 20 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_dismissed_in_part_sentence_varied
Judges
GO Shikwe
Legal Topics
Forgery, Uttering False Document, Attempted Stealing, Procurement by False Pretence
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Forgery Uttering False Document Attempted Stealing Procurement by False Pretence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Oucho

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the appellant procured execution of a document by false pretences contrary to section 355 of the Penal Code.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant attempted to steal Kshs.78,114.75 from Leisure Lodge Resort contrary to section 275 as read with section 389 of the Penal Code.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant uttered a false document contrary to section 352 of the Penal Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant presented a forged cheque to the bank, with the payee altered from Agridat Kenya Ltd to Jabwa Agencies, an account belonging to the appellant. The authorized signatories denied countersigning the alteration, and the appellant's explanation regarding the origin of the cheque was not credible. The evidence established that the appellant was the intended beneficiary and that he knowingly participated in the fraudulent transaction. The conviction on all three counts was therefore safe. On sentence, the court considered that the appellant was a first offender, no money was actually stolen, and he had already served close to eight months of the five-month...

Court Disposition

appeal_dismissed_in_part_sentence_varied

Orders

  • The conviction on all three counts is upheld.
  • The sentence is set aside to the extent that the term already served is deemed sufficient punishment.