CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 37 OF 2014 - Albert Yawa Katsenga vs Republic
Summary: This appeal arose from the trial and subsequent conviction of the appellant on the charge of receiving a benefit. The facts of the case were that the complainant while driving along Kisii-Kisumu highway was stopped by custom officers who demanded to see the documents of the motor vehicle. He provided copies, which the officers declined and detained the vehicle. The complainant later produced the original documents which were reviewed by one of the officers and told the car would be released. This never happened. The accused continued to detain the vehicle and demanded a 30,000/= shilling bribe for it to be released. The complainant reported the matter to Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission where officers facilitated recordings to prove the complaint, and laid a trap for the accused person. The complainant then sent the money to the accused person and the accused released the vehicle. Recordings played in court showed that the accused demanded a bribe from the complainant. Data from the accused person's phone as well as mpesa statements showed that the accused person indeed received the 20,000/= bribe, after which he released the vehicle. The court heard that the accused had no reason to detain the vehicle as it was fully compliant, and that it was only after he received the 20,000/= that he released the vehicle. The court found the accused person guilty of all charges and convicted him under S 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant lodged an appeal on grounds that the charges as drawn and preferred against the appellant were incurably defective and could not have been the basis of a sound conviction. The appellant argued that the charge sheet was signed by the officer in charge of Police station, yet the matter fell under the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act. He argued further that there is a requirement under section 35 of the Act that any prosecution under the Act to be sanctioned by the Attorney General, which was not done in the appellant's case. Counsel further submitted that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the Attorney General had sanctioned the appellant's prosecution and to that extent therefore, the appellant's prosecution was a nullity. The respondent readily conceded the appeal. The court held that there was no evidence that the Attorney General was ever consulted before the charges were brought, and that the KACC was wrong in asking the Kenya Police to prosecute the matter on its behalf. Procedure had to be followed as laid out in the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was accordingly acquitted.
First offence date: 10/May/2010
Start date: 30/Nov/-0001
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:
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
Acquittal
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.
Not guilty
0.00
Acquittal
Count 3 - 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
Appeal allowed