[2006] KEHC 388 (KLR)
The court found that the conviction was based solely on the evidence of PW4, who recovered the stolen iron sheets from the appellant's home more than 20 days after the theft. This time lapse was too long for the doctrine of recent possession to apply. Furthermore, the alleged confession by the appellant was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 388 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: William Okongo Kongere; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 93 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; appellant to be released unless otherwise lawfully held
- Judges
- K Bauni
- Legal Topics
- Store Breaking, Stealing, Evidence Evaluation, Recent Possession, Confession Evidence
- 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
William Okongo Kongere
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the evidence adduced was sufficient to sustain a conviction for store breaking and stealing.
- 2 Whether the doctrine of recent possession was applicable given the time lapse between the theft and recovery of the stolen property.
- 3 Whether the alleged confession by the appellant was properly admitted and recorded.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the conviction was based solely on the evidence of PW4, who recovered the stolen iron sheets from the appellant's home more than 20 days after the theft. This time lapse was too long for the doctrine of recent possession to apply. Furthermore, the alleged confession by the appellant was not properly recorded or admitted in accordance with legal requirements. There was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the commission of the offence. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for store breaking and stealing, and the alternative charge of handling stolen property was not considered by the trial court or requested by the...
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; appellant to be released unless otherwise lawfully held
Orders
- The conviction is quashed.
- The sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
OF KISII
Criminal Appeal 93 of 2006
WILLIAM OKONGO KONGERE ………………….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………………………………… RESPONDENT
(From original conviction and sentence of the Senior Resident Magistrate’sCourt at Homa Bay in Criminal Case No.470 of 2005 – B. J. NDEDA ESQ., AG. R.M)
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted by the Resident Magistrate Homa Bay for the offence of store breaking and stealing contrary to s.306(a) Penal Code, in that on 21/3/03 at Radiro Primary School he and another broke and entered into the schools store and stole 15 iron sheets. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment.
Mr. Kemo the State Counsel conceded to the appeal and stated the evidence was not enough. He said court relied on evidence of Ass. Chief (PW4) who said he received information that the appellant stole the iron sheets. He too confessed to him.
I have considered the appeal and concur with the state counsel that there was no evidence to warrant conviction.
The whole conviction was based on evidence of PW4 who said he recovered the 15 iron sheets from the home of the appellant. The offence however took place on 21st March 2003. Though PW4 did not say when he recovered the iron sheets, the alternative charge of handling stolen property states he was found with the iron sheets on 10th April 2004. Those were over 20 days after the said theft. That was such a long period that even the doctrine of recent possession cannot apply. It cannot therefore be said the appellant participated in the commission of the offence. Perhaps the court should have considered the alternative charge of handling stolen property but it did not do so and neither did the state counsel request this court to consider it.
PW4 also said that appellant told him that he stole the iron sheets.
This was a confusion and should not have been allowed as no proper steps to record it were taken.
In the circumstances I find the appeal is well merited. I find the appeal is well warranted. I quash the conviction and set aside the sentence imposed on the appellant. He be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Dated 7th November 2006.
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE
Delivered in presence of:
cc. Mobisa
Appellant P.I.P