[2019] KEHC 1769 (KLR)
The court found that although the appellant initially confirmed the facts as narrated, she later disputed knowledge of the fake currency during mitigation. This dispute of a material fact rendered the plea equivocal. According to the established principle in Adan v R, if an accused person disputes any material...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1769 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Maureen Iminza; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 29 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction quashed; sentence set aside; retrial ordered
- Legal Topics
- Plea Procedure, Forgery Offences, Economic Crimes
- 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
Maureen Iminza
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plea of guilty entered by the appellant was unequivocal.
- 2 Whether the trial court followed the correct procedure in taking the plea and entering a conviction.
- 3 Whether the conviction and sentence were proper in light of the appellant's mitigation disputing knowledge of the fake currency.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the appellant initially confirmed the facts as narrated, she later disputed knowledge of the fake currency during mitigation. This dispute of a material fact rendered the plea equivocal. According to the established principle in Adan v R, if an accused person disputes any material aspect of the facts, the court must enter a plea of not guilty. The trial magistrate erred by proceeding to conviction and sentence without addressing the equivocal nature of the plea. As a result, the conviction was improper and was quashed, and the sentence set aside. The court ordered a retrial before a different magistrate.
Court Disposition
conviction quashed; sentence set aside; retrial ordered
Orders
- The conviction is quashed and the sentence is set aside.
- The matter is to go for retrial before a magistrate other than the one who heard and convicted the appellant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2019
MAUREEN IMINZA.................................................APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
REPUBLIC...............................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The Appellant MAUREEN IMINZA was convicted on a charge of possessing paper or implements of forgery Contrary to Section 367 (a) of the Penal Code. Upon her own plea of guilty, she was sentenced to serve six (6) years imprisonment. The particulars of the charge stated that on 28th January, 2019 at KIBWARENG Location within Nandi County, she jointly with another without lawful excuse or authority used a paper intended to resemble and pass as a special paper such as provided and used in making currency notes.
The facts were that the Appellant and another were moving from shop to shop on a Motor Cycle within KIBWARENG Locality with fake currencies which they were using to make purchases of goods in small quantities so as to get genuine currency. The fake currencies were in the denomination of 1000/=. They made purchases from two shops without suspicion but upon getting to the 3rd shop, the shopkeeper realized the pair had fake currency notes and raised an alarm. The Appellant and her companion who was riding the Motor Cycle, took off and a chase led to their apprehension in KEMELOILocation (some distance from the scene of crime). A total of fake Kshs.3000/= was recovered from them, and a further search led to recovery of Kshs.7,000/= from the Appellant which had hidden the same in the body of her chased. In total they had fake Kshs.10,000/= currency with which were produced as Exhibits.
The Appellant had also made purchases of braids, Pampers Diapers, Cooking Oil, Beans, Sugar, Rice and Milk.
In Mitigation, she said she had a child and was an orphan. The recovered Milk was returned to the owners. The prosecution cautioned that the case emanated from KOBUJOI where a similar incident had been reported and it seemed the scam had a network.
The Trial Court called for a Probation Officer’s Report which indicated the Appellant was remorseful and had two young children and urged for leniency.
However, what irked the Court was the Appellant’s attitude – that having admitted the charge in Court and to the Probation Officer, when it came to sentence, she turned around to say she did not know the currency was fake.
The Trial Magistrate noted that fake currency exchanged sabotages the County’s economy and was an economic crime. She was then sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
She now appeals on grounds that she had pleaded not guilty to the charge and the proceedings should be declared a nulling.
In the written submissions, the Appellant’s Counsel MR. CHITWA urges that the plea was not unequivocal.
The issue here is very simple, the Appellant confirmed to the Trial Court that the facts as narrated were correct, but just before sentence when asked to mitigate, she said she did not know that the currencies were fake. The locus classicus on plea in Criminal Cases is the case of ADAN -V- R (1973) E.A. 445 AT 446 of an Accused does not agree with the statement of facts in totality of the circumstances, that a Court must enter a plea of not guilty. I recognize that the Trial Court had already entered a conviction, but before sentence, the Appellant appeared to dispute the facts.
The DPP rep C.Ms BUSIENEI) in conceding, the Appeal submits that the procedure as set out in ADAN -V- R was followed, but the Appellant’s mitigation contested the critical fact of whether she knew that the currencies were fake and a plea of NOT GUILTY ought to have been entered.
I am in total agreement and need not add another line to this.
The Trial Magistrate ought to have entered a plea of NOT GUILTY and not engage in arguing that the Appellant had departed from her earlier stand in Court and to the Probation Officer.
The conviction was improper and is quashed in the sentence and is set aside.
Appellant has served 8 months out of a 6 year sentence and in progress as the offence carries a maximum sentence of 7 years. I find it prudent, considering the nature of the offence to order that the matter goes for RE-TRIAL before a Magistrate other than the one who heard and convicted her. She will appear before Senior Principal Magistrate, Kapsabet on 4th December, 2019 for plea taking and trial direction.
Delivered and dated this 28TH day of November 2019 at ELDORET.
H. A. OMONDI
JUDGE