[1986] KECA 15 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal found that there were concurrent findings by the trial and first appellate courts that the appellant was found in possession of the stolen cattle, which he had admitted to stealing. The appellant's explanations for his presence near the cattle were not credible, and his statement to the police,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1986] KECA 15 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mukuri; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 36 of 1985
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Stock Theft, Possession of Stolen Property, Criminal Sentencing, 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
Mukuri
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was properly convicted of stealing stock contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code.
- 2 Whether the evidence supported the finding that the appellant was in possession of stolen cattle.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal found that there were concurrent findings by the trial and first appellate courts that the appellant was found in possession of the stolen cattle, which he had admitted to stealing. The appellant's explanations for his presence near the cattle were not credible, and his statement to the police, admitted after a trial within a trial, constituted an admission of guilt. The court reiterated that on a second appeal, it is only concerned with points of law, and no such point was raised by the appellant. The evidence supported the conviction, and the sentence imposed was the statutory minimum. There was no merit in the appeal, and the court saw no reason to interfere with...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
Mukuri v Republic
Court of Appeal, at Kisumu June 19, 1986
Hancox JA, Platt & Gachuhi Ag JJA
Criminal Appeal No 36 of 1985
(Appeal from the High Court at Kisumu, Schofield J)
June 19, 1986, Hancox JA, Platt & Gachuhi Ag JJA delivered the following Judgment.
The appellant was convicted by the senior resident magistrate at Kisii of stealing stock, contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to the minimum statutory sentence of seven years imprisonment and to receive 5 strokes of the cane. His appeal to the High Court (Schofield J) was dismissed. He now appeals to this court on nine grounds which can be summarized as :-
1. That his residence is Mashangwe area close to the place of arrest.
2. He was arrested on his way home from felling building trees.
3. Courts below concluded he was a stock thief though cattle were not near his boma.
4. That cattle were found in a boma of someone else who was not called to testify.
5. That witnesses having been collected by the police gave hearsay evidence.
6. That complainant did not identify him as a thief.
7. That he was only a victim of suspect.
8. That he was convicted on an uncorroborated evidence.
9. That the trial court imposed manifestly excessive sentence.
The evidence before the trial magistrate clearly indicated that the appellant was in possession of three stolen cattle in Masai land away from his actual home. In his unsworn statement, he admitted that the cattle were recovered near the place he was cutting trees for building a house. Again in his statement to the police which was admitted after the trial within a trial he admitted having stolen the cattle.
There was no explanation why the appellant had gone to cut trees so far away from his house and in the bush where the stolen cattle were grazing. There were concurrent findings by the lower courts that the appellant was found in possession of the stolen cattle which he had stolen a night before. These were findings of fact with which we cannot differ without good reasons.
The learned state counsel supports the conviction and sentence. This court is only concerned with a point of law on second appeal. The appeal does not raise any point of law. There is no merit in this appeal which we order to be dismissed. Accordingly this is the order of the court.