CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 88 OF 2010 - Moses Jones Meroka vs Republic
Summary: The accused person at the time of the incident was on leave when he received a call from the complainant who requested to have his P3 form filled. The accused person asked the complainant to pay 1000/= to have the form filled, which he later negotiated down to 800/=. The complainant feeling aggrieved, reported the matter to EACC offices where recordings were facilitated to establish the demand, and treated money prepared to nab the accused. The accused took the money and asked the complainant to come for a receipt on Monday as it was then a Friday and gave him a note to go have the P3 form filled at the hospital. It was at this point that he was arrested. The appellant contended that the money was paid for filling the P3 form at the hospital, where only he could fill the form. This was rejected by the trial court, which found him guilty on all 3 counts. The High Court considered that the conviction of the trila court was based on the fact that the accused made a demand for money in order to facilitate the filling of the P3 form, and that being on leave, the appellant had no business transacting business of the hospital. It was also established that while the accused person believed that the service was free, it was actually payable at the facility at a rate of 200/=. His complaint was based on the belief that he should not be charged at all, and therefore any charge was wrongful. He consequently contacted the EACC, where with the accused person's assistance, they laid a trap and arrested the appellant on solicitation and receiving a bribe. The High Court noted that the whole process was initiated by the complainant, whose intention was clearly to fix the appellant and that his willingness to bribe and even negotiate for a lower fee in fact made him an accomplice. In count 1, the court concluded that the evidence did not establish that there was a demand for money on the said date, as the complainant only met a nurse at the hospital. In count 2, the only person that could prove the fact was the complainant, whose conduct as noted by the court, made him an accomplice. He had already contacted EACC when he first met the accused person, and therefore there was no was to establish the genesis of the alleged corupt demand. He just met the complainant and was told the fee was 1000/=, which the complainant negotiated down to 800/= and paid prompting his arrest. The complainant's evidence did not show whether the money was payment for the service or a bribe. The court concluded that the complainant was an agent provocateur in the entire transaction and his quest was to fix the appellant. Failure to prove the second count was fatal to the third count, and as such, the high court allowed the appeal and quashed the trial court's decision.
First offence date: 17/Jun/2008
Start date: 15/Jun/2010
Ruling date: 01/Jan/1970
Defendant plea:
Amount involved: KES 1,000.00
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 allowed
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
Appeal allowed