Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Criminal Appeal 93 of 2006|
|Parties:||William Okongo Kongere v Republic|
|Date Delivered:||07 Nov 2006|
|Court:||High Court at Kisii|
|Citation:||William Okongo Kongere v Republic|
|Disclaimer:||The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information|
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA OF KISII
Criminal Appeal 93 of 2006
WILLIAM OKONGO KONGERE ………………….. APPELLANT
REPUBLIC ………………………………………… RESPONDENT
(From original conviction and sentence of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at
Homa Bay in Criminal Case No.470 of 2005 – B. J. NDEDA ESQ., AG. R.M)
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
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.
Delivered in presence of: