[1980] KECA 12 (KLR)
The conviction of the appellant could not be sustained because the goods found in his possession at the time of arrest were not identified as part of the property stolen from the complainant's shop. Since the conviction was based solely on the doctrine of recent possession, the absence of positive identification of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1980] KECA 12 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mendo Chacha; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 69 of 1979
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; appellant to be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
- Judges
- CB Madan, EJE Law, KD Potter
- Legal Topics
- Robbery, Recent Possession Doctrine, Identification of Stolen Property
- 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
Mendo Chacha
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the doctrine of recent possession was properly applied to sustain the appellant's conviction for robbery.
- 2 Whether the goods found with the appellant were sufficiently identified as property stolen from the complainant's shop.
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction of the appellant could not be sustained because the goods found in his possession at the time of arrest were not identified as part of the property stolen from the complainant's shop. Since the conviction was based solely on the doctrine of recent possession, the absence of positive identification of the stolen goods constituted a fatal defect in the prosecution's case. The appellate court found that the High Court erred in upholding the conviction without this essential link, and the State Counsel properly declined to support the conviction. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and the sentence set aside.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; appellant to be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The conviction of the appellant is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT KISUMU
(Coram: Madan, Law & Potter JJ A)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 69 OF 1979
BETWEEN
MENDO CHACHA ..............................................APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC.......................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appellant was convicted of robbery contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and 10 strokes. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed. This is a second appeal.
During the hours of darkness on the night of 1st November 1978 Samuel Muhere, a shopkeeper in Kihancha market, was woken up by bangs at the door of his shop. There were noises and gun shots fired. A window was broken, a torch flashed and a gun pointed at him through the window. He was told to sit down, which he did. His wife was shot in her hand. The back door of the shop was cut open and about ten people came in. Two of them guarded him. One had a gun and the other a pangaand a bow and arrows. Some of the raiders went into the shop. Muhere came out after the gang left. He went into the shop to find that it had been cleared out, there was nothing left. All his shop goods, like ready-made clothes, blankets, khaki and other materials had been stolen.
A few hours later on the morning of the same day two administration police officers, Nelson and Ogola, saw the appellant carrying a bundle of new clothes in the bush near a river. He threw down the bundle on seeing these police officers. He was arrested and taken to Kihancha police station.
The appellant denied on oath in Court that he was involved in the robbery. He also swore that he was not found carrying any luggage near the river on 1st November 1978.
The appellant was convicted on the basis of the doctrine of possession of property recently stolen. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed on the same basis, the judge saying “the doctrine of recent possession applied in his case. He did not offer an explanation and he was rightly convicted”.
We consider the appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained. The goods found in the bundle with which he was arrested were not identified as part of the property stolen from Muhere’s shop and, as his conviction was based on recent possession, this was a fatal defect. Properly, State Counsel does not support the conviction.
We allow the appeal, quash the appellant’s conviction and set aside the sentence. The appellant is to be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Appeal allowed.
Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 13th day of June 1980.
C.B MADAN
……………......
JUDGE OF APPEAL
E.J.E LAW
……………......
JUDGE OF APPEAL
K.D POTTER
……………......
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original
DEPUTY REGISTRAR