EACC 1 OF 2017 - Republic vs Christopher Kipkorir Birgen and Dan Ouma
Summary: The two accused persons stopped and detained the complainant's car being driven by his driver due to a cracked windscreen. The accused persons allegedly demanded that the complainant bribe them with Kes.2000 for them to release the vehicle. The complainant disputed that the car could have a broken windscreen because the vehicle had been inspected 2 weeks before. He went to the EACC and reported the incident. They prepared for logistics, recording devices and treated money and proceeded to the operation. A1 demanded he be given lunch money of 2000, and as soon as received it, shouted at A2 to release the car keys. EACC swooped in and arrested A1. A2 slipped away. The prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies. While it was alleged by the prosecution that the vehicle was detained for having abroken windscreen, one prosecution witness stated that it had been detained for not having an inspection report. Also, the complainant was instructed to give the money to A1 and retain the envelop, but he testified he gave the money with the envelop. The car registration number was also a question mark, with the charge sheet,a prosecution witness and the IO giving contradictory plate numbers. Also, there was a month-long delay in forwarding exhibits to the Government Chemist, which raised serious doubts as to the chain of custody during this time. At the time of submitting these exhibits to the Government Chemist, there was also no representative of the accused present. The Govt Chemist report was equally flawed. These inconsistencies and contradictions led the court to conclude that the evidence tendered in court was not sufficient to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Further, it was established that the prosecution did not obtain the requisite legal direction from the DPP as required under S 35 of the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, and that this was a fatal flaw. The accused persons were acquitted of all counts
First offence date: 16/Jun/2017
Start date: 23/Jun/2017
Ruling date: 01/Jan/1970
Defendant plea:
Amount involved: KES 2,000.00
Type of case: Bribery, Abuse of Office
Resolution comments:
Charge
Plea
Fine amount
Judgement
Count 1 - Receiving a bribe contrary to S 6(1)(a) as read with S18 as read with S27 of the Bribery Act
Not guilty
0.00
Acquittal
Count 2 - Abuse of office contrary to Section 46 as read with Section 48(1) of the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Act
Not guilty
0.00
Acquittal
Count 3 - Receiving a bribe contrary to S 6(1)(a) as read with S18 as read with S27 of the Bribery Act
Not guilty
0.00
Acquittal
Count 4 - Abuse of office contrary to Section 46 as read with Section 48(1) of the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Act
Not guilty
0.00
Acquittal
Persons
Dan Ouma (Accused person)
Email:
Hon L. Ambasi (Magistrate)
Email:
Mr Musyoka (Prosecutor)
Email:
Mr Mwongeli (Advocate)
Email: