[1987] KECA 48 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the evidence of the appellant being found in possession of stolen goods, his attempt to flee from the youth wingers, and his inability to provide a credible explanation for his possession of the items were sufficient to uphold the conviction for kiosk breaking and theft. The court found...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1987] KECA 48 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Njau; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 139 of 1986
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Summary Rejection of Appeal by High Court
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Kiosk Breaking, Theft, Handling Stolen Property, Criminal Procedure, Appeals, Evidence of Possession
- 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
Njau
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Summary Rejection of Appeal by High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for kiosk breaking and theft was supported by sufficient evidence.
- 2 Whether the summary rejection of the appeal by the High Court was proper.
- 3 Whether the appellant's conduct and possession of stolen goods established guilt.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the evidence of the appellant being found in possession of stolen goods, his attempt to flee from the youth wingers, and his inability to provide a credible explanation for his possession of the items were sufficient to uphold the conviction for kiosk breaking and theft. The court found that, although the High Court erred in summarily rejecting the appeal, there was no miscarriage of justice as the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming. The summary rejection was set aside, but upon hearing the appeal on its merits, the court found no merit in the grounds raised and dismissed the appeal.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The summary rejection by the High Court is set aside, but the conviction and sentence are upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: NYARANGI, GACHUHI & APALOO JJA)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 139 OF 1986
NJAU …………………….APPELLANTS
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………….……RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
September 18, 1987, Nyarangi, Gachuhi & Apaloo JJA delivered the following Judgment.
The appellant was charged with the offence of kiosk breaking and theft contrary to section 306(a) of the Penal Code. He was also charged with an alternate charge of handling stolen property contrary to section 322(1) of the Penal Code. His appeal to the High Court both on conviction and sentence was summarily rejected. He now appeals to this court on six grounds. He complains against the trial magistrate’s judgment that there was no eye witness to state that he stole the goods.
There is evidence on record that he was arrested with stolen items. Other stolen goods were found in his house and photographed. The other people charged with him were acquitted although the third accused had described the goods as belonging to his brother. There is also evidence on record that when the youth winger found him, he ran away from there and dropped some goods. He also led the youth wingers to a house where there was a sufuria full of sugar.
The act of attempting to run away from the youth wingers is an indication of guilt. The allegation that he thought the youth wingers were thieves cannot be believed because the youth wingers in their pursuit and they were shouting thief thief.
The learned state counsel supports both the conviction and the sentence. Though the appeal should not have been summarily rejected. We have considered the appellant’s ground of appeal but we consider that there was no miscarriage of justice in summarily rejecting the appeal. We proceeded to hear the appeal having held that the summary rejection which we set aside was wrong.
There is no merit in the appeal and we dismiss it.
September 18, 1987
NYARANGI, GACHUHI & APALOO JJA