[2019] KEHC 2484 (KLR)
The court found that, prima facie, the appeal has chances of success because the evidence only showed unpaid invoices not directly linked to the applicant and no proof that the applicant was responsible for the culpability. The trial court had established that there was no proof the applicant was an employee of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 2484 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Ngang'a Muiruri; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 136 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Bail Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- bail pending appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Stealing by Servant, Elements of Stealing, 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
Peter Ngang'a Muiruri
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Bail Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the appeal has high chances of success.
- 3 Whether there exist exceptional circumstances to warrant grant of bail pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, prima facie, the appeal has chances of success because the evidence only showed unpaid invoices not directly linked to the applicant and no proof that the applicant was responsible for the culpability. The trial court had established that there was no proof the applicant was an employee of the complainant, which is a key element for the original charge. Given these circumstances, and pending a full reevaluation of the evidence at the appeal hearing, the court determined that the applicant met the threshold for bail pending appeal.
Court Disposition
bail pending appeal granted
Orders
- The applicant is admitted to bail pending appeal.
- The applicant shall execute a bond of Ksh. 200,000 or pay a cash bail of Ksh. 100,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPEAL 136 OF 2019
PETER NGANG’A MUIRURI...........................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.......................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This is an application for the bail pending appeal. The Applicant was charged with stealing by servant contrary to Section 281 of the Penal Code. He was however convicted of the lesser offence of stealing. It was the evidence of the prosecution that pharmaceutical products that were sent to the Applicant who would in turn distribute the same. He did this in his capacity of an employee. It was also the evidence of the prosecution that the Applicant would tender payments in cash, cheques and in credit terms. It was therefore on the strength of the invoices and the testimonies of the witnesses that the Applicant was charged and convicted.
2. In a charge for stealing by servant the prosecution is tasked with proving two (2) things. First, that the Applicant was an employee of the complainant. Secondly, that he intentionally and unlawfully stole the said pharmaceutical products. From the record, the trial court established that there was no proof that the Applicant was an employee of the complainant. However, it established that he indeed had stolen the pharmaceutical products.
3. In an application for bail pending appeal, the Applicant has to demonstrate that the appeal has high chances of success. Further, an application of this nature would succeed if the Applicant demonstrates that he is likely to serve the whole or a substantial part of the sentence by the time the appeal is heard and determined. An Applicant is also enjoined to demonstrate that there exist unusual or exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of bail. (seeJIVRAJ SHAH-VS- REPUBLIC [1986] eKLR)
4. In the present case, the Applicant was convicted of the offence of stealing. The elements of the offence of stealing are set out at Section 268(1) Penal Code as follows:
“(1) A person who fraudulently and without claim of right takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to the use of any person, other than the general or special owner thereof, any property, is said to steal that thing or property.”
5. It is clear that there needs to be proof that the Applicant fraudulently converted the use of the property or thing. I will not delve much into this point to avoid prejudicing the appeal in any way. I however find that the only evidence is that there were unpaid invoices but they were not directly linked to the Applicant as the person responsible for the culpability. There was also no evidence that the Applicant paid in any monies or that he took out the said products for delivery.
6. It is therefore my finding that, prima facie, the appeal has chances of success. However, a full reevaluation of the evidence will be done at trial. I therefore admit the Applicant to bail pending Appeal. He shall execute a bond of Ksh. 200,000/ or pay a cash bail of Ksh. 100,000/.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi This 16th October, 2019.
G.W.NGENYE-MACHARIA
JUDGE.
In the presence of:
1. Mr. Masaviru h/b for Mr. Mungania for the Appellant/Applicant.
2. Mr. Momanyi for the Respondent.