[1988] KEHC 54 (KLR)

[1988] KEHC 54 (KLR)

The court held that acquittal on the charge of forgery does not preclude conviction for uttering a false document, as the law does not require the person uttering to have forged the document himself. The essential elements are knowledge that the document is forged and intent to defraud. The court found that the appellant, a subordinate staff member in the Ministry of Agriculture, had no legitimate reason to obtain quotations or present LPOs on behalf of the Ministry of Health. The evidence from Omolo and three Ministry of Health officers established that the documents were forgeries and that the appellant knowingly presented them in an attempt to obtain goods fraudulently. The appellant's...

Citation
[1988] KEHC 54 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kamau; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
8 January 1988
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 765 of 1988
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forgery, Uttering False Document, Attempted Theft, Public Servant Offences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Forgery Uttering False Document Attempted Theft Public Servant Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kamau

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was properly convicted of uttering a false document and attempting to obtain goods by false pretences.
  2. 2 Whether acquittal on the charge of forgery precludes conviction for uttering a false document.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence established the appellant's identity and intent to defraud.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that acquittal on the charge of forgery does not preclude conviction for uttering a false document, as the law does not require the person uttering to have forged the document himself. The essential elements are knowledge that the document is forged and intent to defraud. The court found that the appellant, a subordinate staff member in the Ministry of Agriculture, had no legitimate reason to obtain quotations or present LPOs on behalf of the Ministry of Health. The evidence from Omolo and three Ministry of Health officers established that the documents were forgeries and that the appellant knowingly presented them in an attempt to obtain goods fraudulently. The appellant's...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.