CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 58 OF 2006 - David Osoro Omwoyo vs Republic

Summary: The accused person was charged and convicted in two counts of soliciting and receiving a bribe as an inducement to forebear charging the complainant with an offence under labour laws. The appellant based this appeal on grounds that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, that the charges against the appellant were not supported by the particulars thereof, and that the evidence rendered by prosecution was not sufficient to support the charge. The facts of the case were that the appellant visited the complainant's health facility in a routine labour inspection and inquired as to how the workers were paid. He said that the workers ought to be paid 140,000/= more, and demanded that the complainant pays 50,000/= for the matter not to be pursued further. The complainant reported the same to Kakamega Police Station where he was introduced to an investigator from the ant-corruption unit, who together with his team facilitated recordings and prepared trap money,which the apellant was arrested as he received it. The trial court reviewed the evidence before it, and convicted the applellant based on the fact that Recordings played in court showed the appellant saying if the complainant did not part with 30,000/=, then the appellant would prosecute him. The government chemist report found the APQ chemical used to treat the money on the appellants clothing and hands, proving he had handled the money. The court further noted that the appellant's conduct in meeting the complainant at a hotel to handle official business pointed at the his state of mind. The appellate court agreed with the lower court's decision stating that the magistrate correctly weighed the evidence, and that the evidence was consistent, sufficient an d weighty enough to support the charge and justify and sustain a conviction. The court also noted that the appellant's mitigation expressed remorse and repentance of the offence and fell at the feet of the court asking for a non-custodial sentence. The court interpreted this as the appellant fully appreciating the finding of guilt on his part and the consequences of his actions leading to the conviction. The appeal was dismissed and the trial court's conviction and sentencing upheld.

First offence date: 28/Apr/2005
Start date: 29/Apr/2005
Ruling date: 01/Jan/1970
Defendant plea:
Amount involved: KES 30,000.00
Type of case: Soliciting for a Benefit, Receiving a bribe

Resolution comments:



Fine amount


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.
Not guilty
Appeal dismissed
Count 2 - Corruptly receiving a benefit contrary to Section 39(3)(a) as read with Section 48(1) of the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Act
Not guilty
Appeal dismissed