https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/119

Republic v Ali (Criminal Case E195 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 119 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 119 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Lamu Law Courts Criminal Case E195 of 2025 FM Mulama, RM May 21, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Suleiman Omar Ali Accused Judgment A. Brief Facts 1.The accused is charged with a single count of being in possession of narcotics contrary to section 3(1) as read with 3(2)(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act. 2.It is said the accused on the 22/9/2025 at around 1830 hours within Kashmiri area in Lamu he was found in possession of 1sachet of cannabis sativa in a clear polythene paper and with a street value of Kshs.500/= and which was not in medical preparation form. 3.2 witnesses were called by the prosecution whereas on the hand the accused upon being found to have a case to answer the accused gave sworn evidence and closed his case. 4.I have considered all their testimonies and the exhibits produced. The Prosecution’s case. 5.It is the evidence of the prosecution that police officers among them PW 1 and 2 while on patrol on the said date and time met the accused and who appeared restless and they stopped him and upon introducing themselves, conducted a search on him and from his right back pocket retrieved some dry greenish substance they suspected to be bhang. He was handcuffed and escorted to the police station wherein an inventory was prepared and the accused signed. The suspected bhang was then taken to the government chemist and report confirming it was bhang prepared and filed. The bhang, inventory, exhibit memo and the report were produced as exhibits. Defence case 6.Mr. Suleiman in his defence denied the charges once more and confirmed that despite the police arresting him, they did not find him with anything and that there are no photos to support their allegation. B. Issue For Determination. 7.The following are the issues for determination by this court;a.Whether the accused person was in possession of the substance suspected to be bhang.b.That the substances found in possession of the accused are narcotic drug within the meaning of the Act. C. Analysis And Determination. Whether the accused person was in possession of the substance suspected to be bhang. 8.In order to prove the offences against the accused person, it was the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses that intercepted the accused person looked restless. 9.A search was then conducted on him and that is when from his right back side of the trouser 1 sachet of bhang was retrieved. 10.There is no proper challenge on the evidence by the prosecution on the issue of possession and the accused other than merely saying he was not found in possession, he did not displace the evidence by the prosecution on possession. The accused admitted that he was actually arrested but did not the bhang. When cross examining the police officers who arrested him concentrated more on the issue of being brought to court after the lapse of 24hours, place of arrest and why photos were not taken. He did not strictly challenge the evidence pointing towards possession of the substance suspected to be bhang. 11.Furthermore, an inventory on which he signed acknowledging possession was produced in evidence and the accused had no issues with it at the point of preparation and/or its production. I am thus convinced beyond doubt that the accused was in actual possession of the 1 sachet of bhang. Whether the substance found in possession of the accused is a narcotic drug within the meaning of the Act. 12.On the 2nd issue as to whether the substance in the 1 sachet was bhang, a government analyst report dated 6/11/2025 was produced as an exhibit. The said report confirms that the substance in the 1 sachet after examination was found to be cannabis which is a narcotic drug under the Act. Similarly, the accused did very little to challenge the said report. Infact he did not challenge it at all. I am thus satisfied that the substance in the one sachet was and indeed is cannabis. D. Conclusion And Disposition. 13.Considering the evidence and the exhibits produced, I am convinced beyond doubt that the prosecution proved the sole count the accused person faces in this case. 14.The accused person is thus guilty as charged of being in possession of narcotic drugs contrary to section 3(1) as read with section 3(2)(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act No. 4 of 1994 and he is accordingly convicted in that counts under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 15.Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT LAMU LAW COURTS THIS 21stDAY OF May2026.F.M. MULAMARESIDENT MAGISTRATE.In the presence of:Idris Tomno for DPP.Court Assistant:- Abuswaleh.Suleiman Omar Ali