ANTI-CORRUPTION APPEAL NO 32 OF 2019 - William Ashael Osoro vs Republic
Summary: The accused, a senior principal administrative officer with the ODPP, was arraigned in court to answer charges relating to abuse of office in the arbitrary use of fuel cards belonging to the ODPP in purchases in a manner prejudicial to the ODPP, and stealing by person employed in the public service. Evidence adduced in court showed that the accused on diverse dates used cards assigned to him to make dubious fuel purchases, such as in some instances, fuel exceeding the tank capacity of vehicles alleged to have been fueled, double fuel consumption being done within minutes or seconds, or vehicles purchasing a different type of fuel to the fuel used by the vehicles shown to have consumed said fuel. The court in considering evidence before it made the conclusion that the accused indeed took over individual managementof the card contrary to practice where the card ought to have been managed collectively. Having individual custody of the cards, the accused was ultimately responsible for the fraudulent and unprocedural purchases made under it, and was therefore liable for the prejudice suffered by the ODPP. In the second count of stealing by person in the public service, the court noted that from the evidence before it the cards were only used to fuel the ODPP's vehicles, and that no evidence was produced in court to show that the accused derived a personal benefit from the purchases. He was therefore acquitted on this charge. Dissatisfied with both his conviction and sentence, the accused filed an appeal on grounds that the Learned Trial Magistrate erred in law when she held that the appellant had custody of the fuel card at issue since 2013 when there was no evidence to support such finding; that the Learned Trial Magistrate relied on clearly inadmissible secondary evidence of incompetent witnesses to conclude as it did; that the trial court erred in law in finding that he had failed to record usage of the card in a register to the prejudice of the ODPP. His contention on this ground is that there was no such obligation or duty placed on him; that the trial court failed to properly appraise the evidence before it, and therefore reached a wrong conclusion; that he court also failed to take into consideration that the prosecution case had material inconsistencies which were consistent with his innocence; that the trial court erred in law in arriving at a conviction against the weight of the evidence; and that he court had also erred in law in disregarding evidence in his favour, and such failure occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The High Court in reviewing the evidence concluded that the trial court corrrectly addressed itself to the facts of the case, and therefore the appeal lacked merit and was accordingly dismissed.
First offence date: 01/Sep/2013
Start date: 30/Nov/-0001
Ruling date: 01/Jan/1970
Defendant plea:
Amount involved: KES 7,902,250.00
Type of case: Abuse of Office, Stealing
Resolution comments:
Charge
Plea
Fine amount
Judgement
Count 1 - Abuse of office contrary to Section 46 as read with Section 48(1) of the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Act
Not guilty
600000.00
Appeal dismissed
Count 2 - Stealing by person employed in the public service contrary to Section 280 of the Penal Code
Not guilty
0.00
Acquittal