CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 41 OF 2006 - Joseph Ndemo Mulewa vs Republic
Summary: The appellant was arraigned in court and charged with corruptly agreeing to receive a bribe and corruptly receiving a bribe as an inducement to terminate a criminal case involving the complainant. The appellant demanded 5,000/= from the complainant to terminate the case, failure to which he would go to jail. The matter was reported to KACC, who facilitated recordings and treated trap money which were used to nab the appellant as he received it. The trial court rejected count 2 stating that as per the law, the charges as framed on the charge sheet ought to have been alternatives, not stand alone charges and therefore proceeded with count 1 only. The government chemist found traces of the chemical used to treat the money on the swabs of the appellant's hands. Transcripts of audio and video recordings showed that the appellant indeed received a bribe, and on the basis of this and the totality of the evidence before it, the trial court accordingly convicted the appellant. The appellant challenged this decision on grounds that the charge sheet was defective, that there were overwhelming discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution's witnesses and the complainant that were of material significance to the entire case, and that the same applied with the exhibits placed before court. The high court in agreeing with the trial court, stated that the charge sheet clearly described the offence, and was therefore not defective. The court further held that the inconsistencies raised by the appellant were not material and that the prosecution's case was proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that the trial court properly considered the evidence before it. The appeal was disallowed and trial court's decision upheld.
First offence date: 16/Aug/2005
Start date: 17/Aug/2005
Ruling date: 01/Jan/1970
Defendant plea:
Amount involved: KES 5,000.00
Type of case: Soliciting for a Benefit, Receiving a bribe
Resolution comments:
Charge
Plea
Fine amount
Judgement
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
0.00
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
0.00
Acquittal