[2003] KEHC 276 (KLR)
The court found that the plea of guilty was not unequivocal because the prosecution failed to present all the facts necessary to establish the offence, specifically omitting an analyst's report or certificate confirming that the substance recovered was indeed a narcotic drug as defined under the Act. Without this...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] KEHC 276 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Phillip Njoroge Wamaitha; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 348 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Legal Topics
- Narcotic Drugs Possession, Plea of Guilty, Evidence Requirements, Analyst Report, Conviction Quashing
- 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
Phillip Njoroge Wamaitha
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plea of guilty entered by the appellant was unequivocal and could sustain a conviction.
- 2 Whether the prosecution established all the necessary ingredients of the offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act.
- 3 Whether the absence of an analyst's report or certificate confirming the substance as a narcotic drug invalidated the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plea of guilty was not unequivocal because the prosecution failed to present all the facts necessary to establish the offence, specifically omitting an analyst's report or certificate confirming that the substance recovered was indeed a narcotic drug as defined under the Act. Without this critical evidence, the facts as recorded did not disclose an offence under the law, rendering the conviction unsafe. The court further held that a retrial was not appropriate as it would allow the prosecution to fill evidentiary gaps, which is impermissible. Consequently, the conviction was quashed and the sentence set aside, with the appellant ordered to be released unless...
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The conviction is quashed.
- The sentence is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 348 OF 2003
PHILLIP NJOROGE WAMAITHA ……………………… APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……………………………………………… RESPONDENT
From the conviction and sentence of hon. G. Njuguna SRM
in Kiambu Court Criminal Case No. 935 of 2003)
JUDGMENT OF COURT
The appellant, Phillip Njoroge Wamaitha was charged with the offence of being found in possession of Narcotic Drugs contrary to section 3(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act No. 4 of 1994 as read together with subsection 2(a) of the said Act. He pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. He appealed against both the conviction and sentence.
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was on 17. 4.2003 arrested by police officers at Ndenderu Village. He was found carrying 52 rolls of bhang otherwise called Cannabis Sativa, from his trousers. He could not explain how he came into possession and failed to give an account, which could in law excuse him in respect to the said possession. He was eventually charged with the offence by Karura police station at Kiambu court. On being asked to answer to the charge, he said :-
“It is true”
Then the facts were summarized as stated above and he then said:-
“I admit the facts.”
The court then proceeded to convict the appellant on his own plea of guilty. The appellant now argues that the plea of guilty was not unequivocal and should not stand.
I have considered the issue and have also considered the manner in which the plea was entered. It is not disputed that after the appellant had said that the charge was true, the prosecutor then proceeded to state the facts indicating how the appellant was arrested with the 52 rolls of bhang and how he failed to show that he did so within the exceptions which could have given him a legal excuse to carry the drug. The prosecutor also recorded the fact that he produced the drugs as exhibit 1. He failed to put it on the record that the stuff after being recovered from the appellant had, or part of it had been sent to the Government Analyst for its analysis to establish that the stuff was indeed bhang or Cannabis Sativa. He also failed to produce into the facts before the court any certificate or report confirming the drug as bhang or Cannabis Sativa. In my view it would then be at this point that the facts could be put to the appellant to admit them or deny them after which a conviction would follow if the appellant admitted them. If however he denied the facts as they would have been thus put, a plea of not guilty would necessarily follow.
In this case the prosecutor failed to put on the record all the facts that contained the full ingredients of the offence. Without the analyst’s report or facts proving the “bhang” to be the drug invisaged under the Act the facts recorded created no offence under the Act. The plea was therefore not unequivocal and a conviction should not have followed. The upshot therefore is that this appeal must succeed. The conviction is hereby quashed and the sentence set aside.
I have considered the issue as to whether or not this is a suitable case for a retrial. It was the duty of the prosecution to include in its statement of facts all the facts that would include the necessary ingredients required to prove the charge. They in my view had no excuse for leaving out the facts which would show that the drug was one invisaged under the Act. In not including the analyst’s certificate or report, the prosecutor took a deliberate risk with consequences such as this where this appellate court has to quash the conviction. A retrial would be possible where the appellant has not only failed to have a satisfactory trial but where as well in the retrial the prosecution would not be handed over an opportunity to fill in gaps in the failed evidence with a view not to miss a conviction. In other words the available evidence on the record would be less than enough to convict, unless further additional evidence is called. I hold that this is such a case. I accordingly hold that it is not a suitable case for a retrial.
The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless lawfully held in prison.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 28th day of May, 2003.
D.A. ONYANCHA
JUDGE