[1982] KECA 65 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal found that the only evidence against the appellant was his recent possession of the stolen blanket. The appellant gave an immediate and plausible explanation for this possession, stating that he received the blanket from his son (the third accused). The court held that this explanation was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1982] KECA 65 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Ondigo Odhiambo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 64 of 1981
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal From Summary Rejection of Appeal by High Court
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; appellant to be released unless otherwise lawfully detained
- Judges
- EJE Law, KD Potter
- Legal Topics
- Robbery, Recent Possession, Handling Stolen Property, Burden of Proof
- 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
Ondigo Odhiambo
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal From Summary Rejection of Appeal by High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's conviction for robbery was sustainable based solely on recent possession of stolen property.
- 2 Whether the appellant provided a credible explanation for possession of the stolen blanket.
- 3 Whether the High Court erred in summarily rejecting the appellant's appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal found that the only evidence against the appellant was his recent possession of the stolen blanket. The appellant gave an immediate and plausible explanation for this possession, stating that he received the blanket from his son (the third accused). The court held that this explanation was not only possibly true but almost certainly true, and thus the presumption arising from recent possession was rebutted. The trial magistrate misdirected himself by failing to properly consider the appellant's explanation and by misstating the number of robbers involved. Consequently, there was no evidence on which to base the conviction, and the High Court erred in summarily...
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; appellant to be released unless otherwise lawfully detained
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The conviction of the appellant is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT KISUMU
(CORAM: LAW, POTTER JJA AND HANCOX AG JA)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 64 OF 1981
BETWEEN
ONDIGO ODHIAMBO ……………………...……APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC ………………………...…………...RESPONDENT
(Appeal from an order of the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu (NGScriven J) dated 18th May, 1981 in Criminal Appeal No.452 of 1981
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appellant, who claims to be seventy five years old, was charged with two other men before the Resident Magistrate at Kisumu with robbery, contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code and in an alternative count the appellant alone was charged with handling a blanket stolen in the course of the robbery, knowing or having reason to believe the same to have been stolen, contrary to section 322(2) of the Penal Code. All three accused were convicted of the substantive count and the appellant was sentence to 21/2 years imprisonment and eight strokes of corporal punishment. The appellant appealed to the High Court which summarily rejected his appeal, but in a revision order reduced the sentence of corporal punishment to one stroke “subject to fitness in view of the appellant’s stated aged as seventy five.” The appellant, represented by Mr Behan, now brings this second appeal to this court.
The complainant, who styles himself “Archbishop of Legio Maria Sect” deposed that he was robbed by two men, who assaulted him with a panga and knocked him down. One of the men went into the house and removed from it a bicycle and an old and twice repaired blanket. The other kept guard over the complainant. The complainant was “not allowed to look” as the two robbers, so could not identify them. The two robbers went away with the stolen items. On the following day the complainant’s nephew went to Alego accompanied by policemen.There they found the first and third accused. The first accused led the police to the house of his sister Pauline (PW 3) where the complainant’s bicycle was found. There can be no doubt that this was the complainant’s bicycle, as he produced a receipt for it which stated the frame number. The first accused said that the complainant had given him the bicycle. The third accused led the police to the appellant’s house, where the stolen blanket was found. The appellant said the blanket was his, having been given to him by his son the third accused. All three accused were convicted of robbery on the basis of recent possession. We have no doubt that the appellant was wrongly convicted. He gave an explanation for his possession of the stolen blanket which was not only possibly true but was almost certainly true. Furthermore, the magistrate misdirected himself when he said in his judgment that the complainant was robbed by at least two people.” The complainant’s evidence is absolutely clear on this point, there were only two robbers.
Clearly this appeal must succeed. The only evidence against the appellant was his recent possession of the stolen blanket, for which possession he gave an immediate explanation which on the face of it was true. There was thus no evidence on which to base the conviction and the appeal to the High Court should not have been summarily rejected.
We order that this appeal be allowed. The conviction of the appellant is quashed and the sentence passed on him is set aside. He is to be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully detained.
Delivered at Kisumu this 8th day of December, 1982.
E.J.E LAW
JUDGE OF APPEAL
K D POTTER
...........................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A R W HANCOX
...............................
AG JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original
DEPUTY REGISTRAR