https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7825

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI ANTI-CORRUPTION AND ECONOMIC CRIMES DIVISION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. **E020** OF 2025 STEPHEN ANJAWA ONYANGO...…………………………1ST APPELLANT ONESMUS CHERUIYOT KIRUI……………………………2ND APPELLANT JANE MUCHINA WAMARWA……………………………..3RD APPELLANT -VERSUS- REPUBLIC……………………………………….......................RESPONDENT ***(Being an appeal from conviction by Hon. Isabella Barasa PM dated 6th December 2024 in her Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani Anti-Corruption case No. E011 of 2024)*** **JUDGMENT** The appellants were charged and convicted in the lower court as follows; *Count 1 which was against one Cecilia Samba Mwashigadi (hereinafter referred was to as ‘Cecilia’), 2nd appellant and 3rd appellant-conspiracy to commit an offence of corruption contrary to Section 47 (A) (3) as read with section 48 (1) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act no. 3 of 2003. The particulars were that on 21st day of March 2019, at Shell Petrol Station near Mama Lucy Kibaki Hospital, along Nairobi-Kangundo Road, within Nairobi City County, being persons employed by a public body to wit, the Nairobi City County Government, as Clerical Officer I and Sergeants respectively, jointly conspired to commit an offence of corruption namely receiving a bribe of Kshs.20,000/= from Judith Kanana Riungu with intent that, in consequence, they would allow her to continue with construction at her residential house at Mowlem area.* *The 2nd count which was against Cecilia and the 2nd and 3rd appellants was receiving a bribe contrary to Section 6(1) as read with section 18(1) of the Bribery Act particulars being that on 21st day of March 2019, at Shell Petrol Station near Mama Lucy Kibaki Hospital, along Nairobi-Kangundo Road, within Nairobi City County, being persons employed by a public body to wit, the Nairobi City County Government, as Clerical officer I and Sergeants respectively, requested for a bribe of Kshs. 20,000/ = from Judith Kanana Riungu, with intent that, in consequence, they would allow her continue with constructions at her residential house at Mowlem area.* *Count 3 against the 1st and 2nd appellants was receiving a bribe contrary to section 6(1) as read with section 18(1) of the Bribery Act no. 47 of 2016, particulars being that on 21st March 2019 at Shell Petrol Station near Mama Lucy Kibaki Hospital, along Nairobi Kangundo Road, within Nairobi City County, being persons employed by a public body to wit, the Nairobi City County Government, as Inspector III and Sergeant respectively, they received a bribe of Kshs. 20,000/ = from Judith Kanana Riungu, with intent that, in consequence, they would allow her continue with construction at her residential house at Mowlem area.* Being aggrieved by the conviction, the appellants filed this appeal through a petition of appeal dated 14th July 2025 citing 15 grounds which I collapse to four as follows; 1. THAT the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in finding that 2nd and 3rd appellants were guilty of conspiracy to commit an offence despite insufficient and contradictory evidence presented before the Court which did not link the appellants to the offence. 2. THAT the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in finding that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants were guilty of receiving a bribe despite there being no evidence whatsoever that they were in contact with the complainant and the monies in question. 3. THAT the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to consider the evidence of the appellants as presented in their defence. 4. THAT the learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the appellants' objections without properly considering the evidence adduced, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice. This being a first appeal, this court is under a duty to re-evaluate, reconsider and re-analyze the evidence produced before the lower court and come to its own independent conclusion. It should in doing so, keep in mind that it did not take the evidence of the witnesses and did not have an opportunity to observe their demeanour and as such give due allowance for that. In ***Mark Oiruri Mose v Republic [2013] KECA 67 (KLR),*** the Court of Appeal rendered itself thus; *‘It has been said over and over again that the first appellate court has the duty to revisit the evidence tendered before the trial court, afresh analyse it, evaluate it and come to its own independent conclusion on the matter but always bearing in mind that the trial court had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and hearing them give evidence and to give allowance for that. The well-known case of***Okeno vs Republic (1977) EA 32***which sets out that principle has been referred to in several decisions of this Court and of the High Court.’* In my effort to re-consider and re-evaluate the evidence, I will reproduce abridged version of the testimony of the witnesses as hereinbelow. ***The prosecution’s case*** The prosecution called 11 witnesses the first one being Judith Kanana Riungu who told the court that she had a house at Mowlem estate which she had built up to the ground floor and had intended to dismantle the roof to fit a slab and add one floor. Her neighbour referred her to the Nairobi City County Government (hereinafter referred to as ‘the government’) by calling someone after which five officers of the government including the driver came in a pickup. This was in March 2019. After she explained herself to the officers, they demanded Kshs 10,000.00 which she gave in cash without a receipt. She identified them as Cecilia, Jane, Stephen, Kirui and the driver whose name she did not get to know. She added that she knew the persons she had mentioned as she used to see them in the market seeking for construction money in order to permit developments. On 18-03-2019, the same five officers returned and told her to add Kshs 20,000.00 as she had added another course. The witness added that when she failed to give the demanded money, she was arrested and taken to Buruburu police station where she spent the night. The following day, an officer came and took her from the cells telling her that she was being taken to court for an offence of illegal dumping but on the way, they asked her to call her husband which she did upon which they told him that if she were taken to court, she would be fined Kshs 120,000.00 which made him panic and rush to where they were with Kshs 30,000.00 which he gave to Cecilia. Later, the officers picked another Kshs 10,000.00 from Firozi area making a total of Kshs 40,000.00. She added that after she gave out the money, the appellants allowed her to build. After a few days, the new slab started leaking and she asked Cecilia if she could repair it but she told her not to dare unless she did what they had told her husband upon which she decided to report to Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the EACC’). On 21-03-2029, a Mr. Mukundi of EACC gave her a recording gadget and showed her how to use it in recording conversation which gadget she identified court. She added that, Mr. Mukundi introduced her to another officer known as Mr. Mbuvi who photocopied and treated notes of Kshs 10,000.00 and gave her the copies which looked exactly like the original in a khaki envelope. She was also shown how to handle the treated money. She identified the notes and the envelope she had signed for in court. Mr. Mukundi and his colleagues accompanied the witness to Shell petrol station along Kangundo road where she had arranged to meet the government officers. When she met them, she switched on the gadget and started bargaining with Cecilia who was asking for 50,000.00. She went to the government’s car and negotiated with Jane, Kirui and Stephen who agreed to take Kshs 20,000.00 which she gave from the bundle she had been given at the EACC. As the officers were counting the money she had given them, she called Mr. Mukundi and when the officer saw the EACC vehicle, they attempted to drive away but they were blocked by the EACC’s vehicle and arrested. The witness added that she later returned the remaining money and the recording gadget to the EACC and she was invited to listen to the recording upon which she confirmed that it captured their conversation. The video clip she captured was played in court where she identified Cecilia and the voices of the appellants. In cross-examination, the witness stated that she was the one who recorded the video which did not show the money. She stated further that the plot she was building belonged to her and her husband although she did not have documents to prove it. She admitted that she did not go to any office and claimed that it was the appellants who called to give her the building plan. PW1 added that she had dumped stones, sand and cement inside her plot for the construction after she had been arrested and taken to the police station. She put the slab after she was arrested. She admitted that she went to the EACC out of bitterness for having been locked in cells when she had a five months old baby. She stated further that she spoke with the suspect on their mobile phones but she was not asked to give their telephone numbers. She could not tell who was the overall boss but she spoke to Cecilia at the petrol station who referred her to the other officers in the car. She stated that she gave the money to Stephen whose full name she did not know but she positively identified him in court. She could not estimate the time between when she gave out the money at the petrol station and when the appellants were arrested but she stated that the distance was about 200 metres. She could also not tell from whom the money was recovered. She alleged that Stephen, Onesmus and Jane touched the money but she could not tell whether Cecilia touched it. She denied that her reporting to EACC was actuated by her bitterness for being arrested. PW2 was one Simon Ngige Muchiri. He told the court that on 18-032019, he received a call from his wife, PW1 who told her that she had been arrested by the government officers who were taking her to Buruburu police station. He followed and founded her in police cells. He went home and found their children unattended and then called Cecilia to enquire and she told him to go to Buruburu police station and seek her release. He added that on the following day, he went to the police station. Two ladies and three men removed PW1 from the police cells with intention of taking her to court but on the way, they stopped and demanded Kshs 40,000.00 but he gave them 30,000.00 upon which she was released. Cecilia called later and he took more money to her along Kangundo road near Mama Lucy hospital. Cecilia called again later and asked for Kshs 40,000.00 and that was when they reported to EACC. PW1 was never taken to court. He added that they had been told that the money was for cash bail but they were not given a receipt. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he was a driver working with the government. He could not recall the date he was called from work but it was mid-week. He also could not recall the day of the week. He added that the government officers were from Embakasi West. Initially, Cecilia asked for Kshs.10,000/- in cash and they gave it but PW1 had been asked to give Kshs.100,000/- for fixing a slab. He did not know why the government officers asked for money for the construction. Pressed further, the witness told the court that on 18/3/2019, he was at work and the construction work was going on. He had built at the back end of the plot and wanted to erect another house at the front side of the plot and had bought one lorry of stones, one lorry of ballast and one lorry of sand. He had not asked for any permit to dump the building materials. They continued with the construction after the appellants were arrested. He added that he engaged his mother to plead with Cecilia and the appellants to release PW1 but he did not succeed because they alleged that she had talked badly. He stated that Cecilia did not ask him for any money on 21/3/2019 or on 20/3/2019 but PW1 told him that Cecilia was saying that the money was not enough. He added that Cecilia was very well known and she was the boss to the appellants but he did not know the names of the appellants. He added that he was not happy with the situation but there was nothing he could do since PW1 was already in the cells. Janet Waeni Kimeu was the third witness. She was an administrator working with the government since 1999. She told the court that on 21-03-2019 she was at work and officers working under her, that is Cecilia and the appellants had been assigned to attend to a complaint along Komarock road which they did. They were not using their ordinary driver. She came to learn later on that day through a Whatsapp post that they had not returned to the office because they had been arrested. She was later summoned at EACC on 24-06-2019 for confirmation that she was their boss but not the immediate supervisor. She confirmed that Cecilia and the 1st appellant were working under devolution and the 2nd and 3rd appellants were working under inspectorate at that time. She had worked with them for one and half years. When she went to the EACC, a video clip was played and she was asked to recognize the images and voices. She recorded a statement to the effect that she recognized them and signed documents after identifying the four. She went on to identify the certificates of image and voice recognition she signed for each of the accused persons. In cross-examination, the witness stated that she was not the immediate supervisor of the appellants. She added that the accused persons signed a register for the tasks they were attending to. She confirmed that she had seen three of the four accused persons and the driver in the clip. She stated further that, at the time of watching the clip at the EACC, she was seated with an EACC officer who played the clip for her and that she did not see the image of the 2nd appellant and their vehicle in the clip. She added that the voice did not mention the 3rd appellant. She added that she was called to EACC two months after the accused persons were arrested. PW4 was Ziper Awuor an investigator with EACC whose duty entailed organizing trap and sting operations. She recalled that on 21-03-2019, she was in the office at Integrity Centre when she was requested by one investigator Samuel Mukundi to assist him in investigations he was carrying out which involved the government officials who had requested for Kshs. 40,000/- from PW 1 to allow her to continue with construction of a house around Mowlen area to ensure that she would not be disrupted later. They left EACC offices in the company of PW1, one Shee Bakari, Ali Molu, Mr. Mukundi and others. They proceeded Shell petrol station along Kangundo road next to Mama Lucy Hospital. The witness added that on reaching the petrol station, PW1 alighted from the vehicle. They also alighted and took positions and after a few minutes, she saw PW1 talking on her mobile phone then she proceeded to a double cabin vehicle branded with the government colours. The witness added that she saw PW1 move back to the double cabin vehicle after speaking to a lady. PW1 entered the vehicle and sat at the front co-driver’s seat where she stayed for some time. After sometime, PW1 came out and a man also came out of the vehicle. They talked for a few minutes then the man went back to the vehicle. The brown lady who PW1 had first spoken to also entered the vehicle and they drove off. PW1 called and signaled them (the EACC officers) and they all ran and boarded their vehicle and followed that of the government. After 500 metres, the EACC vehicle blocked the government’s vehicle and the officers introduced themselves as EACC officers and told the government officers that they were under arrest. The witness added that she arrested Cecilia Mwashigadi and Jane Wamarwa who were in the government vehicle with three men and she took the two ladies to the EACC’s vehicle. She conducted a search on both ladies and did not recover anything from them. She left the two ladies in their vehicle and found that Bakari Shee had recovered Kshs. 20,000/- from the government’s vehicle. She matched the 20,000 notes with the photocopies. She found Ali Molu swabbing the hands of the two men. The witness testified further that, they left the scene to EACC offices to continue with further investigations. The recovered Kshs. 20,000/- was the money which had been treated with APQ chemical. She added that the accused persons had demanded money from PW1 and that PW1 was given EACC treated money to trap them. The witness went on to identify work tickets recovered from the suspects, the inventory for recovery of the work ticket, Cecilia and the appellants. While being cross-examined by the counsel for the appellants, the witness stated that PW1 was to bribe the accused persons who would allow her to proceed with her building but she admitted that she did not visit the site to see the building. She was also not aware that PW1 had been locked up at Buruburu police station on account of non-compliance. She denied that PW1 lured the accused persons to Shell petrol station while they were on the way. She just heard PW1 saying that she had arrived and was asking the other people on the other end of the call where they were. She added that the government vehicle had three men and two ladies but she could not tell exactly how they were seated in the vehicle. She added that the ladies were in the vehicle she arrested both when they emerged out and took them to the EACC vehicle. One of the ladies had a bag and a purse which she searched. She also did body search and she did not find anything relevant to the case. She added that they were only searching for their money as they were not clear who had taken the money. PW4 stated further that she did not witness the recovery of the money but she saw Bakari counter-checking the 20,000 notes with the photocopies. She could not tell in whose custody the money was during transportation to Integrity Centre. Martin Mbuvi testified as the fifth witness. He told the court that his duties as an investigating officer with EACC included investigating economic crimes, reported corruption cases, planning and executing trap and sting operations and any other duty assigned to him by his superiors. He added that on 21-03-2019, his colleague Mr. Samuel Mukundi requested him to assist him prepare operational trap money for a case that he was investigating involving some officials from the government. After introducing him to PW1, Mr. Mukundi gave him Kshs. 30,000/- to prepare for the operation. He took photocopies of the notes after which he prepared an inventory then took the complainant through the inventory. He prepared the photocopied money and the original currency by comparing the serial numbers and the photocopies with the real money. After confirming that the money and the photocopies were tallying, they signed the inventory. They also signed a khaki envelope inside which he placed the monies. The witness added that he proceeded to the exhibit store where he wore clear hand gloves and treated the money using APQ powder, then he inserted 3 bundles of 10,000 each into the envelope in PW1’s presence. He then instructed PW1 not to touch the money until the time of handing over to the officials who were demanding a bribe from her. He produced the inventory which he had prepared, the half-cut khaki envelope, the money and the photocopies of the money as exhibits. He stated in cross-examination that he wore gloves while treating the money and that he prepared the exhibits before the investigation team went out for the operation. He added that he could not comment on what was demanded but Mr. Mukundi gave him Kshs. 30,000/- to treat. He was informed that PW1 bargained the bribe to Kshs. 20,000/- and the balance of Kshs 10,000/- was taken back to EACC but he could not tell where the money was. He added that he disposed the gloves which he used into a dustbin. He added that the envelope was for marking the exhibit and he did not see the money or the envelope again after he gave it to PW1. The witness stated further that he did not accompany the operations team as he was left in the office. He pointed out that the preparation was done on 21-03-2019 and not 22-03-2019. PW 6 was one Paul Odera Jabaya a driver working for the government. He told the court that on 21-03-2019, he was attached to Kamukunji Sub-County but he was instructed by Susan Onanga his boss to relieve one ailing driver at Embakasi West Sub-County. He proceeded to Embakasi West Sub-County and reported to one Stephen who assigned him work and signed his work ticket. He identified the work ticket which was filled by Stephen that day for motor vehicle registration number 47CG 289A a Grand Tiger double cabin belonging to the government. Mr. Stephen opened and authorised the route as Kangundo road Mowlen, Outering road, Umoja, Embakasi. On the said date, he drove the vehicle with Mr. Stephen, Mr. Kirui, Madam Jane and Madam Cecilia, all employees of the government and who he did not by then know on board. He drove to Kangundo road where they had work and around lunch time, they asked him to drive to Shell petrol station for lunch. After lunch they went to the vehicle to go back to work but before he drove off, a lady came to the vehicle and sat at the co-driver’s seat. He added that he never knew the lady who came in and spoke to Jane and Kirui who were seated at the back seat. After talking to the two, the lady boarded the front seat and continued to speak to Jane and Kirui. He heard them discuss about money but he did not focus on their conversation. The lady then alighted and the two passengers who were outside the vehicle namely Cecilia and Stephen boarded and he drove off but another vehicle drove faster and over took them then suddenly blocked his path. The people in the other vehicle alighted and quickly went to their vehicle and introduced themselves as officers from the EACC and informed them that they were under arrest. The officers from EACC took all his passengers to the other vehicle and searched his vehicle. One of the officers took control of his vehicle and drove them to the EACC offices. The witness added that a search in his vehicle recovered an envelope from the dash board but he could not tell the contents in it or who placed the envelope on the dashboard. He stated that he did not see money in the envelope although he had indicated at the EACC while recording his statement that he saw money. He added that he did not see the officers comparing the money. He produced the work ticket of the day as an exhibit and identified the accused persons in court and when the video clip was played, he was not able to recognize the voices or faces in the initial stages but as it progressed, he was able to identify faces of the lady who spoke to his passengers, himself, Jane and Kirui at the back seat. He was however not able to recognize the voices. In cross-examination, the witness stated that it was his first time to work at Embakasi West Sub-County and he was never sent there again. The work ticket was written in his presence when he arrived at 9:00 am. He added that they went to Kangundo road and did not go to all the areas covered in the work ticket. After lunch, while he was waiting for Stephen and Cecilia to board, a lady entered the vehicle in the front seat. He did not talk to her as he did not know her. He insisted that the boss at Embakasi was the 1st appellant. The witness added that the lady sat at the co-driver’s seat but turned and faced the two passengers who she engaged in a conversation. He was not able to estimate the time they engaged as he also concentrated on his phone. He heard the lady talk about money and he lost focus and he never knew what they were talking about. He stated further that he did not know that they were being pursued after he drove off and he could not drive on after they were blocked as he would have collided with the other vehicle. The 1st and 2nd appellants were outside the vehicle during the search. He added that the EACC officers conducted a search of his vehicle in the absence of himself and his four passengers. The search yielded a cut envelope and he did not witness the recovery of the envelope. The envelope was not opened immediately to reveal the money. Further, he could not tell if an inventory of the items received was prepared as he did not sign any inventory. The 7th prosecution witness, one Moses Ndungu Kimani a Government Analyst at the Government Chemist testified that on 28-05-2019, he received the exhibits mentioned earlier from the investigations officer with instructions to ascertain whether the controlled sample would be contained in all other exhibits. Upon analysis, he concluded that the controlled sample was found to be Anthracine Phenothra and Quinine (APQ). The said APQ was found to be in exhibits marked A, B, C, D, E and F which were all positive on analysis and concluded that they contain APQ powder. He added that the powder was also found on right and left hands swab of Onesmus Kirui. He was placed on cross-examination and stated that the exhibits he received were plain cotton inside envelopes without gloves. He was given a control sample of APQ powder but they also had a sample of APQ powder in their laboratory which they use for quality control. He could not tell who mixed the sample of APQ. He was categorical that he was the one who opened the envelopes. He added that anyone who handled the money had the powder in their hands and if anyone handles any surface with APQ powder transfers the APQ powder to that surface. He stated further that he swabbed the exhibits in the presence of the investigating officer but the suspects were not at the government chemist. The prosecution called their eighth witness one Abdi Molu an investigator working with EACC dealing with trap and sting operation and any duty as may be assigned by the Commission. He told the court that on 21-03-2019, his colleague Samuel Mukundi approached and asked him to accompany him to assist with the investigations that he was assigned. Mr. Mukundi also introduced him to the complainant from whom the suspects had demanded a bribe. The complainant had told them that the accused persons had asked from her Kshs 40,000/- so that she could continue to build her house. A team of investigators comprising himself, Michael Mbuvi, Samuel Mukundi, Alex Nyakundi, Shee Bakari and Zipher Awuor was formed. Mr. Samuel Mukundi asked Mr. Martin Mbuvi to prepare the trap money and instructed the complainant how to use the recording gadget. He added that they left their offices at Integrity Centre and proceeded to Shell petrol station along Kangundo road near Mama Lucy Hospital and set at place where they could monitor the movement of PW1 and the suspects. The suspects were in a double cabin tiger vehicle belonging to the government. The complainant spoke briefly outside the vehicle with Cecilia and was directed to where the double cabin vehicle was parked. The complainant then proceeded to the suspected vehicle and she boarded the vehicle at the front passenger’s seat. In a few moments, she got out of the vehicle and Mr. Samuel Mukundi alerted them that the suspects had received the money. The witnesses stated further that, the suspects had received the treated money of Kshs. 20,000/-. After PW1 alighted, Cecilia boarded their car to drive off. From where he was standing, the witness could not see Jane, Kirui and Anjawa but he could see PW1 seated at the front passenger’s seat. They chased the double cabin with EACC vehicle and blocked it and introduced themselves as EACC officers and told the occupants that they were under arrest and ordered them to get out of the vehicle. They all got out and Samuel Mukundi searched the two male suspects namely Anjawa and Kirui while Zipher Awuor searched the two lady suspects namely Cecilia and Jane and nothing was recovered from either of them. Mr. Shee Bakari conducted a search on the vehicle and recovered Kshs. 20,000/- in a brown envelope on the vehicle’s dash board. He claimed that he witnessed the recovery of the money by Mr. Shee Bakari. They were able to compare the recovered Kshs. 20,000/- to the 20 notes of the treated money and the serial numbers tallied. After the recovery, he swabbed the hands of the male suspects Anjawa and Kirui while wearing clean gloves and removed the gloves and placed them in the envelope with the cotton and labelled the envelope. He identified and produced the two gloves, envelopes and the cotton used to swab the two. He gave both envelopes to the investigating officer Mr. Mukundi. He added that the accused persons and their driver declined to sign an inventory they prepared after the search and recovery. In cross-examination, PW8 stated that he never knew any of the four accused persons before they were arrested. He also said that he did not talk to PW1 but was briefed by Mr. Mukundi. He could not tell whether the complaint’s building was legal or not. He added that they did not visit the site where the construction was done. He insisted that he had taken position near their vehicle and 50 metres away from the suspect’s vehicle. He witnessed PW1 enter the double cabin vehicle but he could not hear what they were saying. He added that he swabbed Anjawa and Kirui while standing near the vehicles. He remembered Bakari searching the dash board and recovering the brown envelope. He admitted that he did not swab the driver as the complainant told him not to. PW9 told the court that he was the Deputy Director Human Resource department in the government. He maintained all the records of employees of the government as the Deputy Director Human Resource Management. His testimony covered the employment status of the appellants which is no longer in contest and in that background, I don’t find the testimony of the witness relevant in this matter. Shee Bakari was the tenth witness who was an employee of EACC as an investigator with duties entailing planning and executing sting and trap operations, supporting cases in court, investigating cases of bribery and any other duties assigned by the Commission. He recalled that on 21-03-2019, he was on duty at the Integrity Centre when his colleague Samuel Mukundi, the investigating officer in this matter asked him to accompany him to Kangundo road and introduced him to the complainant (PW1) who had reported corruption allegations against the government workers who had asked her for a bribe of Kshs.40,000/- to allow her to continue with construction of her house. The witness added that the team which had been formed for that purpose proceeded to Kangundo road for the operation and while on the way, Mr. Samuel Mukundi asked PW1 to call the suspects to agree where they can meet to receive the trap money as they had agreed. As they approached Caltex, they alighted at a distance and dispersed as per the roles assigned to them by the investigating officer as the complainant proceeded to the petrol station to meet the suspects. The witness added that he went past the petrol station and positioned himself and while there, he saw PW1 engage in a talk with a lady next to a double cabin vehicle belonging to the government. Thereafter, he changed positions as he was waiting for a signal from the investigating officer after the money exchanged hands. He walked for a couple of minutes before Mr. Mukundi called and informed him that money had exchanged hands in the government’s vehicle and that the vehicle had driven off. He dashed to the EACC vehicle and they gave a chase and caught up with the vehicle 500 metres from the petrol station and intercepted it and informed the five occupants therein who were the accused persons the purpose of the arrest. The witness was tasked to search the vehicle and upon search, he came across Kshs. 20,000/- in a khaki envelope inside the compartment of the co-driver’s seat. He recognized the serial numbers of the recovered 20 notes as the same as the photocopies done at the EACC offices. When he arrived at the EACC, he prepared an inventory then handed over the recovered money to the investigating officer. He identified the 20 notes of Kshs. 20,000 (old denominations) which he recovered from the government vehicle and the brown envelope which had the money. He identified and produced the inventory which was signed by Samuel Mukundi, himself and other EACC officers who were present. He added that the four accused persons declined to sign the inventory. On cross-examination, PW10 testified that the four accused persons were informed that they were under arrest for receiving a bribe. Upon the arrest, he hurriedly dashed into the government’s motor vehicle and conducted the search which all the accused persons witnessed. After the search, the ladies were taken to the EACC vehicle where they were handled by the lady officer. He added that after searching the entire vehicle including the back seat, he did not find anything of evidential value to the case except the treated money. After recovery of the money, he placed it back into the envelope. He added that he did not know if any other money was involved other than the Kshs 20,000.00 he recovered from the vehicle. He stated further that he did not see anyone swabbing another and he did not swab anyone. The last prosecution witness was the investigating officer, Mr. Samuel Mukundi Njiru. He told the court that hisduties were to investigate economic crimes offences, compile case files and forward them to ODPP for directions among others. He testified that on 21/3/2019, he was allocated a case of bribery which the complainant had reported. The complainant had reported that officers from the government based at Embakasi West were demanding a bribe of Kshs. 40,000/- so as to allow her to continue with her building. He interviewed the complainant who narrated to him how the officers from the government used to visit her site and collect bribes from her. The narration is the same as the testimony of PW1. PW11 added that during the investigations, he visited Buruburu police station and took the extract of O.B. Number 62/18/3/2019 taken by PC Joshua Chumba who took action against PW1 who was taken to that police station by the government officers namely, Onesmus Kirui and Sgt. Jane Wamarwa. The complainant was to face an offence of dumping and she was released under OB 22/19/2019 which indicated that Sgt. Onesmus Kirui and Sgt. Jane Wamarwa had taken her to City Court but PW1 told him that she was never taken to court. After he recorded PW1’s statement, he went to the then in-charge Mr. Wachenje who gave him Kshs. 30,000/- in 1,000 denominations of the old currency. He gave the 30 notes to PW5 and requested him to process the money for an operation which meant that Mr. Mbuvi was to photocopy the 30 notes taking down the serial numbers of the notes in an inventory, placing an envelope to contain the money and treating the money with APQ chemical. Mr. Mbuvi prepared the money and together with PW1, signed an inventory. PW11 added that he took a video audio gadget and inducted PW1 on how to use it and tested whether it was working and prepared an inventory of handover of the gadget. PW1 was to use it to capture the conversation and images so that they could ascertain the truth. He went on to form a team of seven officers for the operation but PW5 was left in office. The team accompanied PW1 to Shell petrol station near Mama Lucy Kibaki Hospital along Kangundo road where the suspects had agreed to meet PW1 and when they reached near the petrol station, PW1 alighted to walk to the station and he trailed her from behind. By then, PW1 had with her the trap Kshs. 30,000/- and the recording gadget. His colleagues also alighted and strategically placed themselves on the right side of the road opposite the petrol station. PW1 went straight to a lady who was talking on phone and he saw PW1 and that lady talking but he could not hear what they were saying from where he was. He claimed that he saw the lady pointing PW1 to the government vehicle which was parked nearby before returning to her telephone conversation. The witness added that PW1 went and boarded a double cabin vehicle which was branded with the government colours with four occupants including the driver and she sat on the co-driver’s seat. A few minutes later, he saw PW1 alight from the vehicle and he could see her talking to the officers through the windows which had been lowered. At that time, PW1 beeped the witness’s mobile phone as they had agreed to signal him once she had handed over the money. Shortly, the lady who was talking on phone went to the vehicle and boarded and the vehicle drove upon which he alerted his colleagues and they assembled at their vehicle and they followed the government vehicle and blocked it, alighted from their vehicle and introduced themselves as officers from the EACC and arrested the suspects. The witness added that he asked the suspect where they had kept the money they had taken from PW1 but they denied having received any money. He proceeded to wear clear gloves and search the pockets of the 3 male government officers while PW4 searched the ladies in the EACC vehicle. He did not recover any money from the three government officers and PW4 did not recover any money from the 2 ladies. The search was extended to the double cabin vehicle registration number 47 CG 289A by PW10 who recovered an envelope which was inserted inside the dash board and upon opening, he found the money. He brought the money out and compared them with the photocopy of the notes and found that they matched those given to the complainant for the operation. PW11 proceeded to produce the envelope and the Kshs 20,000.00 as exhibits. The witness added that they left the scene with the suspects with the government vehicle being driven by an EACC officer a Mr. Samuel Ekales. He added that he returned the balance of the money to Mr. Wachenje. He prepared the inventory of PW1 returning the gadget and the envelope which he produced as exhibit. He later charged the four suspects with the driver of the government vehicle becoming a witness after they established that he found himself in the trap and that he was not working with the suspects. The witness added that he prepared the exhibits and marked them as; - A - Envelope of the right-hand swab of Onesmus Kirui. B - Envelope containing the left-hand swab of the Onesmus Kirui. C – Envelope of the right-hand swab of Jane Wamarwa. D – Envelope of the left-hand swab of Jane Wamarwa. E – Half cut envelope which had been used to contain the money. G – The envelope which contained the control sample. He added that the envelopes were taken by Ali Molu at the scene to swab the 2nd and 3rd appellants using clear gloves and fresh cotton wool. The two were swabbed because PW1 had indicated that she had given the money to them. They handed over the control sample which was a cotton ball and a glove to the government analyst for comparison. PW11 added that he later collected the report from the government chemist and the control sample was found to be a mixture of Anthrecine Phenothlen and Quinine which is abbreviated as APQ and the same was detected in envelopes A and B which contained the right and left hand swabs of the 2nd appellant and C and D being the left and right hand swab of the 3rd appellant. The APQ powder was also found in prosecution exhibit 9 and in the half-cut envelope produced as exhibit 20E. The witness also listened to the conversation which was captured in the clip and having been guided by PW1 on the names of the suspects, he prepared a transcript and later invited PW1 who also listened to the clip while comparing it to the transcripts and she confirmed that the transcript was the same as the clip and signed the transcript. He added that the conversation between the complainant and the suspects was in English and Kiswahili languages and some few words in Kikuyu language which he understands. He also prepared a DVD for production in court which he initially downloaded from the recording gadget to his laptop computer HP serial number 2C0510QGW and he prepared a certificate under section 106(b)(4) to certify the same. He added that the transcript of the clip indicated names of the complainant and the accused persons though it had a typo in the names of the parties. He produced the recording gadget, the DVD and the certificate of electronic evidence as exhibits. The video clip was played with the witness identifying pertinent parts of the conversation. He added that as per his investigations, it was established that Onesmus Kirui and Stephen Anjawa Onyango came into contact with APQ chemicals after touching the monies treated with it. After watching the video clips, he recommended the charges as against the accused persons. He clarified that the video clip produced as exhibit 10 was recorded on 21-03-2019 and not on 20/3/2019. He was the one who tested the audio/visual recorder before handing it over to the complainant and could not tell at what point the dates changed. In cross-examination, PW11 told the court that the testing of the recording gadget included taking his voice using and downloading the same into a computer and that he never retained the test. He added that he travelled with the complainant in the same vehicle until they reached their destination but he never saw the complainant when she started recording the video clip. He stated further that the complainant never told him that the recorder slipped from her hand and fell down and when he received it back, he re-tested and found it was still in working order with its batteries intact but he admitted that the video he watched indicated a different date. He also admitted that at some point, the images on the video appeared to be upside down but the date and time appeared to be intact. He added that as per the exhibit memo, he forwarded the documents to the government chemist for an analysis on which he had indicated the date, time and location where the said documents were recovered. The location indicated in the memo was Ferose in Mowlem within Nairobi City at 1700 hours on 21/3/2019. He never indicated on the exhibit memo the gloves which he sent to the government chemist for analysis but he confirmed having sent some gloves to the government chemist for analysis. His colleague who took the accused’s swabs had put on some gloves which are the ones that he forwarded to the government analyst for purposes of examination. He added that he was aware that at one point, the complainant was arrested and detained at Buruburu police station wherein she spent a night for an alleged offence of dumping. He stated that upon arrival at the scene, he saw the complainant talking to a lady who he later learnt was called Cecilia and thereafter, the complainant proceeded to a nearby double cabin vehicle which she boarded and sat on the co-driver’s seat. He confirmed having recorded statement of PW6. He insisted that as per his own investigations, the complainant gave out the trap money inside the vehicle. He admitted that the 3rd accused (2nd appellant) was not captured in the video clip. By the time PW1 was giving out the treated monies, one Cecilia was still outside the said vehicle. He added that it was not possible for the 1st and 2nd appellants to have received the monies from PW1 at the same time since the 1st appellant was outside the vehicle by then. He added that he initially treated the government’s driver as a suspect and that he received the remaining Kshs.10,000/- and audio/visual recorder from PW1 while already back in the office and not from the scene. He had never met or talked to the accused persons prior to this incident and it was the complainant who identified all the accused persons’ voices to him in the transcripts. He testified further that, he signed certification of the transcript on 29-03-2019. He did the said transcripts earlier but made some amendments later as the transcripts were done on 26-06-2019. The witness confirmed that the third accused’s (2nd appellant) image was not captured in the video clip yet as per exhibit 13, madam Kimeu (PW3) confirmed having properly recognized and identified the 3rd accused’s image in the said video clips. He explained that the certificates of recognition were countersigned by Alex Nyakundi and Ali Abdi Molu and that he was the one who duly filled them at the Integrity Centre on 24-06-2019 in the absence of Janet Kimeu and later his two colleagues just took the same to PW3 in her office for signing. The witness restated that they only took swab from 1st and 2nd appellants because they were the only two people who handled the money. As per the complainant, this money was given to 2nd appellant who in turn gave it the to the 1st appellant. The 1st appellant thereafter placed the same inside a box in the dashboard of the vehicle which they were using but this was not part of the complainant’s recorded statements as well as his own recorded statement. He concluded by confirming that the video clip did not capture PW1 while handing over the trap money to anyone or anywhere inside the vehicle. ***The defence case*** After they were placed on their defence, the appellants testified on oath as follows; The 1st appellant (Stephen) told the court that he was working with the government as an Inspector III of the Environment dealing with trees, excavation and building materials at Embakasi West. He added that on 18-03-2019, he was at work but he was not with his co-accused persons. He alleged that he was at Umoja II working at spine road where he spent the whole day and went back to the office at around 3:00 pm. On 21-03-2019, he went to work at 8:00 am where they were assigned to go to Komarock road to give verbal notice to traders on the footpath to give way to the contractor to work. He, together with Kirui and Jane went to Mowlem and took Cecilia with them. He was to inspect the environment while Jane and Kirui were the enforcement officers and Cecilia was to capture what was to happen. They were using a double cabin vehicle being driven by PW6 who he could not recall well as it was his first day at work. They went to Komarock through Kangundo road where they found residents and spoke to them and they asked for time. At 11:00 am, Cecilia was complaining that someone was calling her. When they finished, they went to a petrol station where there was a café. He was seated at the co-driver’s seat while Kirui was seated on the back left and Jane behind in the middle. Cecilia was seated behind the driver at the back. At the petrol station, he left the vehicle to buy samosas to eat after which he went back to the vehicle which had moved. The complainant who he did not know got out of their car and went towards him. She was with another person who looked familiar to her and she extended her hand and he greeted her. He then heard her say “ashambuliwe”. He pushed the complainant aside so that he could head to the vehicle on the co-driver’s seat. They left in the vehicle but between 300 metres and 500 metres, a Land Cruiser blocked them and one of its occupants got out and told them that they were EACC officers and they were under arrest. Him and Kirui were arrested and shortly thereafter, Cecilia and Jane were brought. The EACC officers took them back to the government vehicle and told them that some money had been found at their vehicle’s dashboard. The 1st appellant added that the persons who had arrested them started perusing documents and swabbed his and Kirui’s hands and then took them back to the Land Cruiser. He did not see when the money was recovered from the dashboard but an officer called Bakari said he had recovered money. They did not see them swab the vehicle. After Kirui and him were swabbed, they were put back in the Land Cruiser. He added that he saw the complainant remove some money and give to Mukundi then they were then taken to EACC. At the EACC, they were given cash bail and advised to go back after one week and when they did, they were charged. He denied asking for a bribe from the complainant and added that there was no evidence showing him asking for a bribe. He stated that the photos availed in court were upside down and unclear. He insisted that the complainant was angry for being arrested and he did not talk to her about a bribe. According to him, the complainant stated that she gave money to the person sitting behind yet he never sat behind at any given time. The video clip does not show him inside the vehicle. The photo was taken when he was out of the vehicle. He denied receiving any money from anyone and swore that he did not know the complainant. In one sentence cross-examination, the 1st appellant stated that he was not with his co-accused at the time the complainant was arrested for the first time. The 2nd appellant told the court that he was working with the government as an enforcement officer and recalled that on 18-03-2019, he was at Embakasi West Sub-County when they were told to go and remove people from a road as there was a contractor who was making the footpaths. In the process of doing the work, they got some resistance. A certain lady had put materials on the site and they advised her to remove the materials but she started making noise. People started gathering and he called his commander who advised him to arrest the lady and remove her from the scene. They arrested the lady for offence of dumping on the footpath and put her in their vehicle and took her to Buruburu. This was done by himself, Cecilia and Jane. When they booked her, Jane told him that there was an area Member of County Assembly who had called asking them to help the lady but it was not possible because it was in the evening. The following morning, when they went to Buruburu, they found the lady with a small baby and he spoke to his commander and they were told to warn her and advise her to remove the materials she had dumped on humanitarian grounds. On 21/3/2019, they were instructed to do some work on Komarock road where they went and advised the traders to move. At around 11:00 am on their way for lunch, they heard Cecilia communicating with someone and when they reached Shell petrol station, he could see Cecilia speaking with someone at a distance but they did not take interest as they did not know her. When they came back to the car, him, Cecilia and the other appellants saw a lady alighting from the front seat of their vehicle, greeted her and got into the vehicle. They were blocked at around 200 metres by EACC officers and told that they were under arrest. The 1st appellant and himself were arrested and taken to the EACC’s Land Cruiser. Later on, they brought Cecilia and 3rd appellant to the vehicle. Ten minutes later, the 1st appellant and him were taken to their vehicle where they heard one of the EACC officers saying they had found money in an envelope in the government vehicle’s dashboard. They later swabbed and took them back to the EACC vehicle. After recording statements at EACC offices, they we were given cash bail and released and later charged. On cross-examination, the 2nd appellant stated that, when they got to Shell petrol station, he alighted and was talking to some people by the side of the vehicle and by the time the lady was coming to the vehicle, he had alighted. He did not have an idea of money that was recovered from the vehicle. He added that the grudge by the lady could be from the arrest on the day they gave verbal notice. She had resisted the notice and started inciting people. The 3rd appellant also gave testimony on oath and stated that she worked as an enforcement officer with the government. She added that on 18-03-2019, their boss instructed them to go and remove people from Kangundo road which they did. They found a lady who started making noise and asked where she would put her materials. She assessed that there was possibility of chaos and because she had a spine injury, she called Cecilia to assist to arrest the lady. Cecilia came and they arrested the lady and took and booked her at Buruburu police station for the offence of dumping. Later in the evening, she was called by Cecilia who told her that she received a call from a Member of County Assembly who requested that they release the lady. In the morning, they found that she had been brought a small baby and decided to release her. When they released her, they heard her threatening them. She added that on 21-03-2019, they were instructed to go to Komarock road to remove people from the road. At around 11:00 am they went to eat at Shell petrol station on Komarock road and while in the vehicle, Cecilia kept receiving calls. She told them that a lady was calling her but she did not know who. The 1st appellant was seated in the co-driver’s seat while Cecilia was seated behind the driver and the 2nd appellant was seated behind the co-driver. Cecilia was called by the complainant and went to her about 100 metres away. The 1st appellant left the vehicle and the 2nd appellant left shortly thereafter leaving her alone. She stated further that she saw Cecilia gesturing to the complainant who came to the vehicle. She was seated behind. The complainant opened the vehicle in front and sat on the co-driver’s seat. She was talking but the 3rd appellant didn’t comprehend what she was saying then she started searching the vehicle at the front. She would open the compartment then close. Neither her nor the driver spoke to her then she alighted from the vehicle. The 3rd appellant added that Cecilia and the 1st and 2nd appellants came and they left but shortly thereafter, they were blocked by a vehicle and told to come out of their vehicle. The 1st and 2nd appellants were removed first and put in the vehicle that had blocked them. The people identified themselves as officers from the EACC. Cecilia and her were put in the EACC’s vehicle and the 1st and 2nd appellants were taken to the government’s vehicle again and later on returned to the vehicle that had blocked them. She concluded her evidence in chief by stating that they were then taken to EACC where they recorded statements and were given cash bail and later on charged. In cross-examination, the 3rd appellant told the court that the complainant came to the vehicle and opened the compartments. She was talking to herself. She denied telling the complainant to remove the money and added that the transcription produced by the prosecution was not true. She denied speaking to the complainant. ***Analysis and determination*** I start this analysis by making an observation that I have seen the prosecution in many cases of this nature, citing the relevant Act as Bribery Act just as it did in this matter. It should be remembered that the Legislature in its wisdom found that name inappropriate and renamed the Statute as Anti-Bribery Act Chapter 79B of the Laws of Kenya. I have considered the evidence of the parties including the exhibits produced before the trial court. I have also read the submissions of the appellants and those of the respondent. As observed earlier, it is no longer in dispute that the appellants were employees of the government. Similarly, going by the evidence from both sides, there is no dispute that the appellants were arrested at the place and time as stated by the prosecution. The main point of contest in this matter is whether the appellants demanded and received the bribe as alleged by the prosecution. I have read the submissions of the appellants dated 15th December 2025 and the respondent’s submissions dated 9th February 2026. I adopt the issues for determination as framed by the appellants as follows; 1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 2nd and 3rd appellants conspired to commit an offence of corruption. 2. Whether the prosecution proved that the 1st and 2nd appellants received a bribe. 3. What orders should the court make An offence of conspiracy to commit an offence has been defined as an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish a common goal of committing an unlawful act or offence. In ***Ngode v Republic [2025] KEHC 853 (KLR),*** the court observed that; *‘Kenyan statutes do not define what constitutes ‘conspiracy.’ However, the Courts have circumvented this definitional loophole by making reference to authoritative legal texts and publications. The Black Law Dictionary 9th Edition defines conspiracy as follows;* *“An agreement by two or more persons to commit an unlawful act coupled with intent to achieve the agreement’s motive and (in most states) action or conduct that furthers’ the agreement; a combination for an unlawful purpose.”* The appellants claim that there was no proof that they conspired to commit the offence of bribery. Conspiracy is proved where it is shown that the accused persons had a common goal of executing a scheme to do acts which amount an illegal act or an offence. There must be a meeting of minds between the accused persons whose intention is to commit an offence. Honourable Justice J.M. Bwonwonga restated this in ***Walubengo & another v Republic [2022] KEHC 10414 (KLR)*** when he held that; *‘The dominant aspect of the offence of conspiracy is that there must be an agreement, a meeting of the mind to commit an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.’* The evidence produced in court in this matter showed that the 2nd and 3rd appellants and Cecilia were in discussion about the purpose of them meeting the complainant at the petrol station where the money is said to have exchanged hands. Before then, the said appellants had been involved in the arrest, detention and eventual release of the complainant from the police station. They were also active in negotiations of the bribery from the original Kshs 40,000.00 to 20,000.00. It cannot be a coincidence that the appellants were at the petrol station at the same time and in the same vehicle and later discuss a common thing. The transcript produced as exhibit 7 has conversation where the 2nd and 3rd appellants and Cecilia are involved and each said something about the intended construction and exchange of money. In this regard, it is my view that the said appellants and Cecilia had a common goal of receiving a bribe from the complainant and that is why each is seen in the conversation as having had prior knowledge of the reason and purpose of meeting the complainant. If it were not so, Cecilia would not have referred the complaints to the 2nd and 3rd appellants or to those who were in the vehicle. The appellants submit that the evidence of the witnesses was so inconsistent that it lost probative value. They urge that the complainant contradicted herself in her testimony on how she met and interacted with the appellants and the amount the appellants asked after she was arrested. They also argue that the complainant was inconsistent in that she told the court that, she was arrested for failure to pay yet the occurrence book extract showed that the was arrested for dumping. In my view, anything or act that was done before the 21-03-2019 which is the date the offence the appellants were tried for are relevant only to the extent of establishing the basis and genesis of the bribe of Kshs 20,000.00. Whether the complainant was earlier arrested for dumping or for failure to pay a bribe of the initially demanded bribe of Kshs 40,000.00 or any other amount is not material to this case. In that case such inconsistency is not material and did not prejudice the trial. The other inconsistencies the appellant have attempted to raise in their submissions do not, in my view go into the core of the events of 21-03-2019 and are therefore not able to entitle the appellants to an acquittal. It is trite that not all contradictions or inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies would lead to an acquittal or create a reasonable doubt. Justice Patrick J.O. Otieno held in ***Francis Mugo v Republic [2022] KEHC 1486 (KLR)*** that; *‘The position taken by the Kenyan court is that contradictions or inconsistencies to merit disturbance of a conviction must be grave and not just any inconsistency. The court of Appeal in****Richard Munene v Republic [2018] eKLR*** *set the law on what inconsistency or contradiction would sway the court when it said: -* ***“It is a settled principle of law however, that it is not every trifling contradiction or inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witness that will be fatal to its case. It is only when such inconsistencies or contradictions are substantial and fundamental to the main issues in question and thus necessarily creates some doubt in the mind of the trial court that an accused person will be entitled to benefit from it.”*** *(Emphasis added)* In view of the above I find and hold that the charge of conspiracy to commit the offence of corruption was proved and I proceed to uphold the conviction by the trial court and disallow the appeal on the first count. I now turn to the question whether the offence of receiving a bribe was proved to the required standard. An offence of receiving a bribe is complete when the accused person request or receives money made to influence them as public officer to do or refrain from doing an act. Section 6(1) of the Ant-Bribery Act provides that; *‘A person commits the offence of receiving a bribe if-* 1. *the person requests, agrees to receive or receives a financial or other advantage intending that, in consequence, a relevant function or activity should be performed improperly whether by that person receiving the bribe or by another person;* 2. *the recipient of the bribe requests for, agrees to receive or accepts a financial or other advantage and the request, agreement or acceptance itself constitutes the improper performance by the recipient of a bribe of a relevant function or activity.* 3. *in anticipation of or as a consequence of a person requesting for, agreeing to receive or accepting a financial or other advantage, a relevant function or activity is performed improperly by that person, or by another person at the recipients' request, assent or acquiescence.’* The appellants have not raised any issue with the transcript which was produced as prosecution exhibit 7. There is no argument that the same was not reflective of what was in the clip which was rerecorded by the appellant. It has been argued that the 1st appellant was not in the government vehicle and did interact with the complainant. A look at exhibit 7, the 1st appellant is seen engaged in the conversations which resulted to the giving of the Kshs 20,000.00. The evidence available is that the 1st and 2nd appellants were swabbed and were found to have handled the money and the envelope which contained the treated money. At page 9 of exhibit 7, the 1st appellant is shown assuring the complainant that when she gave the Kssh 20,000.00, she will not be disturbed again. The evidence is clear that the appellants requested for a bribe and the same was given to them albeit in treated currency notes. They were public officers working with the government and indeed the intent was clear that they were to allow the complainant construct another floor of her house in Mowlem. It has been urged that the 1st and 2nd appellants did not solicit for a bribe. In my view, the request may be done directly or through proxies or partners in the commission of the offence. Not every person involved in the events leading to that must be seen talking directly to the complainant in order for the offence to be complete. The sequence of the appellants’ actions show that they were part of the team that was to receive the money the with intent of letting the complainant continue with construction. Having analyzed this portion of evidence, it is my holding that the appellants committed the offence of receiving bribe as charged. I have however noted that Onesmus Cheruiyot Kirui, the 2nd appellant faced count 2 and 3 of requesting for bribe and receiving bribe respectively. It would appear that the prosecution understood request and receipt as two distinct offences. My reading of Section 6(1)(a), shows that the text uses commas and word ***‘or’*** meaning that either of the acts mentioned therein constitutes the offence of receiving a bribe. The two in my view cannot therefore form two distinct offences. In that regard, I find that there was duplicity of charges in respect of Onesmus Kirui Cheruiyot, the 2nd appellant. In view and consequence of this, I set aside conviction and sentence in count 3 in respect of the 2nd appellant. In conclusion, I make the following orders; 1. The appeal is disallowed in entirety in respect of 1st and 2nd counts. 2. The appeal in respect of count 3 against the 1st appellant is disallowed. 3. The appeal in respect of count 3 against the 2nd appellant is allowed and in place thereof, the 2nd appellant is acquitted of the said count. 4. Any fine paid by the 2nd appellant in respect of count 3 shall be refunded to him. Dated signed and delivered at Nairobi this **5th** day of **June** 2026. **B.M. MUSYOKI** **JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT.** Judgment delivered in presence of Mr. Mwachofi for the appellants, the appellants and in absence of the respondent.