[2019] KEHC 10335 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, by means of a fraudulent device (use of a mobile phone), induced Esther Anyango Okama to pay him Kshs.10,000/=, property of Bullshow Trading Company Ltd, to which he was not entitled. The court held that the employment...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 10335 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Simon Wycliffe Ouma; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 44 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Cheating Offence, Elements of Cheating, Burden of Proof, Criminal Appeals, Sentencing, Fraudulent Device
- 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
Simon Wycliffe Ouma
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the evidence adduced was sufficient to support a conviction for cheating contrary to section 315 of the Penal Code.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate failed to consider the defence presented by the appellant.
- 3 Whether the employment relationship between the appellant and the complainant company was relevant to the offence charged.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, by means of a fraudulent device (use of a mobile phone), induced Esther Anyango Okama to pay him Kshs.10,000/=, property of Bullshow Trading Company Ltd, to which he was not entitled. The court held that the employment relationship between the appellant and the complainant company was not a necessary ingredient for the offence of cheating under section 315 of the Penal Code. The appellant's shifting defence did not raise reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Consequently, the appeal against both conviction and sentence lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2013
SIMON WYCLIFFE OUMA.......................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.................................................................RESPONDENT
(From the original conviction and sentence in Criminal case No.571 of 2012 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Busia by Hon. I.T Maisiba– Principal Magistrate)
JUDGMENT
1. Simon Wycliffe Ouma, the appellant herein, was convicted for the offence of cheating contrary to section 315 of the Penal Code.
2. The particulars of the offence were that on the 1st March 2012 atFunyula Bullshow Trading Company in BUSIA County by means of a device namely mobile phone unlawfully induced Esther Anyango Okama to pay him a sum of Kshs.10,000/= the property of Bullshow Trading Company Ltd.
3. The appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs.20,000/= or serve six months imprisonment. He has appealed against both conviction and sentence.
4. The appellant was represented by the firm of Bogonko, Otanga & Company Advocates. He raised the following grounds of appeal:
a) That the trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in convicting him in absence of sufficient evidence to support the charge.
b) That the trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider the defence.
c) That the trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to hold that the complainant was not the employer of the appellant.
5. The state opposed the appeal through Ms. Ngari, learned counsel.
6. The facts of the prosecution case were briefly as follows:
The appellant was previously employed as a sales person by Bullshow Trading Company Limited. After he was sacked, he called Esther Anyango Okama and asked her to transfer KShs.10,000/= ostensibly for his work-related activities. Esther knew later that she duped from an auditor.
7. In his defence, the appellant oscillated between admitting and denying the receipt of the complained of amount of money.
8. This is a first appellate court. As expected, I have analysed and evaluated afresh all the evidence adduced before the lower court and I have drawn my own conclusions while bearing in mind that I neither saw nor heard any of the witnesses. I will therefore be guided by the celebrated case of OKENO vs. REPUBLIC [1972] EA 32.
9. Section 315 of the Penal Code provides:
Any person who by means of any fraudulent trick or device obtains from any other person anything capable of being stolen, or induces any other person to deliver to any person anything capable of being stolen or to pay or deliver to any person any money or goods or any greater sum of money or greater quantity of goods than he would have paid or delivered but for such trick or device, is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for three years.
10. What is cheating?Black’s Law Dictionary, tenth edition defines it as follows:
The fraudulent obtaining of another’s property by means of a false symbol or token, or by other illegal practices.
For an offence of cheating contrary to section 315 of the Penal Code to be established, the prosecution has the onus of proving the following ingredients beyond any reasonable doubts:
a) That the accused obtained by means of fraudulent trick or device;
b) Anything capable of being stolen; or
c) Cause any other person to pay or deliver to any person any money or goods or any greater sum or greater quantity of goods than he would have paid or delivered but for such trick or device.
In the instant case, the appellant caused Esther Anyango Okama to pay him a sum of Kshs.10,000/= when he knew he was not entitled to receive the same.
11. In his defence the appellant admitted that he was employed by the complainant company. Although at some point he kept changing position on this issue, it was evident he was an employee of Bullshow Trading Company Ltd. It is however important to note that whether the appellant was an employee of the complainant company is not relevant as an ingredient of the offence.
12. From the foregoing analysis of the evidence on record, I find that the appeal lacks merit. The same is dismissed .
DELIVERED and SIGNED at BUSIA this 6th Day of February, 2019
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE