[1985] KECA 30 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was properly convicted based on the doctrine of recent possession, as he was found in possession of the complainant's spraying pump shortly after it was stolen and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The magistrate's conclusion that the appellant unlawfully came...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1985] KECA 30 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: __MISSING__; Respondent: __MISSING__
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 160 of 1984
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Recent Possession, Handling Stolen Property, Burden of Proof, Appeals Process
- 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
__MISSING__
Appellant
__MISSING__
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's conviction for possession of stolen property was supported by evidence of recent possession.
- 2 Whether the summary rejection of the first appeal by the High Court was proper.
- 3 Whether any points of law were raised on second appeal to warrant interference with the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was properly convicted based on the doctrine of recent possession, as he was found in possession of the complainant's spraying pump shortly after it was stolen and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The magistrate's conclusion that the appellant unlawfully came by the property was supported by the evidence. The summary rejection of the first appeal by the High Court was justified, as the grounds raised did not disclose any points of law. On second appeal, the appellant again failed to raise any legal issues warranting interference with the conviction. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
Court of Appeal, at Nakuru M a r c h
12, 1985
Madan, Hancox, & Nyarangi JJA
Criminal Appeal No 160 of 1984
(Appeal from an order of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru, Masime J)
Criminal law - recent possession of stolen property – contrary to section 322(2) of the Penal Code – appeals – summary rejection – second appeal – no points of law raised in.
The appellant, a former employee of the complainant, was convicted of being in possession of stolen property contrary to section 322(2) f the Penal Code his first appeal to the High Court was rejected. Held:
1. The summary rejection was perfectly proper.
2. The appellant did not raise any points of law in his original and supplementary record of appeals to persuade the court to interfere with the conviction.
Appeal dismissed. March 12, 1985, Madan, Hancox, & Nyarangi JJA delivered the following Judgment.
The appellant a former employee of the complainant was in possession of the complainant’s spraying pump by December 6, 1983. The complainant lost a spraying pump on November 19, 1983 which the appellant gave to PW2, it appears as security. The appellant was in recent possession of the complainant’s missing property which he came by unlawfully. The magistrate’s conclusion that the appellant broke into the complainant’s premises to steal the material spray pump is sustainable on the evidence. PW2 wasn’t in the circumstances as accomplice.
The summary rejection was perfectly proper having regard to the four grounds of appeal before the High Court.
In this second appeal, the appellant hasn’t raised any points of law in his
original and supplementary memorandum of appeal to persuade us to interfere with the conviction. We dismiss the appeal.