CRIMINAL APPEAL 24 OF 2017 - Boniface Odhiambo Otieno vs Republic
Summary: The accused, a police officer attached to Ruaraka Police Station, made arrests and committed the same to Ruaraka Police Station for processing. The complainant in this case went to the police station to check on one of his employees who had been arrested, where he encountered the accused who demanded a 2000/= bribe for the employee to be released. The complainant reported the matter to the EACC who facilitated recordings to verify the complaint and arrested the accused. In considering the evidence before it, the trial court concluded that the accused indeed solicited for a bribe from the complainant and proceeded to convict him. The accused person appealed this verdict on grounds that the magistrate erred in law to issue a conviction where there was no sufficient eveidence to prove the charge, and that the prosecution did not prove all the ingredients of the charges and that it failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court in considering the evidence before it looked at the conduct of the complainant and observed that he the way he was frantically looking for the appellant even after he had been told he was not arount showed that he was out to fix the appellant. It was also estblished that the appellant himself did not receive the bribe. The recorded converstaion heavily relied on by the prosecution did not also establish when the reported converstaion took place. It was also established that in identifying the voice on the recorder, the investigators deviated from procedure in giving him a hint of why he had been called to Integrity Center and the person who was under investigation. In considering the totality of the evidence before it, the court concluded that the prosecution did not prove this case beyond reasonable doubt, and quashed the tral court's conviction. Accused/appellant aquitted.
First offence date: 17/Feb/2016
Start date: 19/Jul/2016
Ruling date: 01/Jan/1970
Amount involved: KES 2,000.00
Type of case: Soliciting for a Benefit
Count 1 - Corruptly soliciting for a benefit contrary to Section 39(3)(a) as read with Section 48(1) of the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Act.
Count 2 - Corruptly soliciting for a benefit contrary to Section 39(3)(a) as read with Section 48(1) of the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Act.