Indiazi v Director of Public Prosecution [2024] KEHC 13910 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E284 of 2024
Judge
S Mbungi
The High Court at Kakamega revised a custodial sentence, substituting a two-and-a-half-year term with one year of probation after noting remorse, first-offender status, and a positive probation report.
The High Court declined to revise a lawful custodial sentence, finding no irregularity or illegality and holding that the applicant’s health concerns did not justify interference.
Mutugi v Director of Public Prosecutions [2024] KEHC 3346 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Petition E112 of 2024
Judge
TW Cherere
The High Court at Meru held that the applicant’s sentence must be computed from the date of arrest because the trial court failed to credit pretrial custody under section 333(2).
Wanjiru & another v Republic [2023] KEHC 23291 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Appeal E066 of 2023
Judge
DR Kavedza
The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the offences of forgery and uttering a false document beyond reasonable doubt. The only nexus between the appellants and the alleged forgery was the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecution's forensic document examiner, which conflicted with the defence expert's evidence. The trial court erred by relying solely on logical reasoning and failing to properly weigh the contradictory expert opinions and all other available evidence. There was no actual evidence establishing that the appellants forged or uttered the marriage certificate. T…
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, quashed convictions for forgery, uttering a false document, and obtaining registration by false pretence, and set aside the sentence.
The High Court dismissed a criminal revision seeking non-custodial treatment or concurrent sentences, upholding consecutive prison terms for forgery and uttering a false document.
The High Court reviewed a 6-month sentence for uttering a false document and substituted it with a Kshs 100,000 fine under prison decongestion considerations.
The Court of Appeal held that its jurisdiction on a second appeal is limited to points of law and it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial and first appellate courts unless such findings are based on no evidence. Both lower courts found that while the document in question could have been forged, there was no evidence that the respondent forged it or knew it was forged. The appellant's grounds of appeal challenged the sufficiency and evaluation of evidence, which are factual matters not open for review at this stage. The Court found no error of law in the High Court's…
The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of forgery, uttering a false document, and giving false information to a public officer. The evidence did not establish that the appellant forged the land sale agreement, as there was no proof he falsified the seller's signature or that the seller was not the person who offered to sell the land. The mere inaccuracy of the seller's identity card number was insufficient to establish forgery. Regarding uttering a false document, the prosecution did not prove the document was false or that the…