Floral Gakenia Kabugi v Republic [2020] KEHC 5244 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT KERUGOYA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 30 OF  2017

(From the Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No. 260 of 2015

of Senior Resident’s Magistrate’s Court at Baricho – E. H. KEAGO)

FLORAL GAKENIA  KABUGI..................................................................APPELLANT

VERSUS

REPUBLIC................................................................................................RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant Flora Gakenia Kabugi was convicted for the offence of cheating Contrary to Section 315 of the Penal Code and was ordered to pay a fine of   Kshs; 100,000/= or serve one year imprisonment in default,  by  the   Principal  Magistrate  at  Baricho Criminal Case  No. 260  of  2015.

2. The Appellant was dissatisfied with both the conviction and sentence and filed this appeal raising the following grounds;

(i) Thatthere was no exhibit  recovered  in  possession  of  the  appellant  at  the  time  of  arrest.

(ii) Thatthere was no documentary evidence produced in court to  prove  that  there  was  money  transaction   between  the  appellant  and  the  complainant  to  link  the  appellant  in  the  alleged  offence.

(iii) Thatthere was no  inventory  form drawn  by  the arresting  officer  to  support  that  the  alleged  exhibits  were  legally  recovered  from the  appellant  as  it was  alleged.

(iv) Thatthe complainant did not  prove  by  producing  any documentary  evidence  that  she  was   the  commercial  producer  of  alleged  mushroom  and  no any  other  evidence  ( permit)  was  produced  in  court  to   prove  that  the  complainant  had  ever  been  a farmer  producing  the  alleged  product.

(v) Thatthere  was  no  agreement  or  receipt  produced  as  evidence/exhibit  that  there  was business  transaction  between  the  complainant  and  the  appellant.

(vi) Thatthe  exhibits  produced  in  court  were  empty  and  broken  containers  hence  the  same  cannot  prove  that  there  was  fertilizer  recovered  or  supplied  to  the  complainant  as  alleged.

(vii) Thatthere  was  no  prove  produced  in court  that  the  appellant  and  the  complainant  had  ever  communicated  on  phone/letter  during  the  alleged  offence.

(viii) Thatthe  complaint  did  not  prove  documentarily  that  she  had  over  paid  any  money  to  the  appellant  as  alleged.

(ix) Thatthe evidence produced  in court  by  the   prosecution  witness  was  not  corroborative  and  it  had  contradictions.

(x) Thatsome  of  the  witnesses  who testified  in  court  were  coached  by  the  investigating  officer  to testify  in  court.

(xi) Thattrial  Magistrate  failed  to consider  that  the  alleged  fertilizer  was  proved  by  government  chemist  as  fertilizer  in court.

3. The appellant prays that the appeal be  allowed,  conviction be quashed  and  the  fine  paid  be  refunded.

4. The respondent opposed the appeal and prayed that it be dismissed.

5. The Court gave directions that the appeal  proceeds  by  way  of  written submissions.  The appellant filed submissions and a reply to the submission by  the state. The state filed submissions through Mr.  Geoffrey Obiri Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions.

6. The appellant submits that she was the 1st accused  in the  proceedings  before  the  trial  magistrate.  She chose to argue  all the  eleven grounds  together.  She disputes her involvement in the  Commission  of  the  offence.  That the prosecution did not  proof  the  charge  against  her  beyond  any  reasonable  doubts.  That there were numerous contradictions which the trial  Magistrate  should  have  resolved  in  her  favour.

7. The appellant further submits  that  she  was  subjected  to  double  jeopardy  as  she  was  fined  and  also ordered  to  refund  to the  complainant  that  which  was  swindled.  The appellant further submits that  no  inventory  of  the recovered  items  was made  by  the  officers  who  recovered  the  foliar  fertilizer.   That the recovered items   were not photographed at  the  scene.

8. It is  further  submitted  that no documentary  evidence  was  produced  to  prove  that  the  complainant  had withdrawn  money  from  the  bank.   It is further submitted that  the  evidence  was  contradictory  and  lacked  corroboration.

9. For the state it was submitted that the prosecution tendered  overwhelming  evidence  which  proved  the  change  beyond  any  reasonable  doubts.  He urged  the  court  to dismiss  the  appeal.

The brief facts  of  the case  are  that;

On  17th  February, 2015  the  complainant Mary  Wambui  Ndegwa  ( PW1)   who was  a scrap  metal dealer  in  Kagio  Town  was called  by    one   Cyrus   Murage  Gakugi  who told  her  that   he  was  selling  fertilizer  which  is  used  for mushrooms.  He  told  her  that,  there  was  someone  who  would bring  three  bottles  of  the  fertilizer,  which was being  sold  at   Kshs; 10,000/=  on  wholesale  price, and  KShs; 14,000/=  on  retail price.

10. After some  time  three people  went  in  a  motor-cycle  and  they  were to collect  the   fertilizer.  The three  asked  her   why  they   were  only three  bottles, yet  they  expected  there  to be  six  bottles,   she  called  Cyrus  and  said  that  they  would  pay  Kshs; 39,000/=, which  they  paid  via  Mpesa.

11. PW-1-  realized  that  it was  good  business,  and  she  called  Kariuki  and  asked  him  to bring  20  pieces  which  he  did.   She paid   Kshs; 200,000/= while  in  her  office,  with  one  Peter  Chomba,  she  then called  the  customer, and  the  customer  said,  there  should have been  36  pieces.  She called  Kariuki  again,  and  told  him  to bring  some  more fertilizer.

12. The appellant who is Flora   took seven pieces to her  the  complainant, and  she  paid  Kshs; 45,000/=  in  cash  and  Kshs:45,000/=  via  Mpesa.  By then she had reported the matter to the Police, and  the  appellant  was  arrested.  She led the   police to where other suspects   were, Police recovered seven bottles  of  fertilizer  which  the  appellant  had  delivered,  and  the   other  suspects, had  brought  nine  bottles  of  fertilizer,  which  were  taken  by  the  police.   The bottles contained some black substance,   the  three  were  then  charged. The Kshs; 45,000/= which she paid to the appellant was not recovered.

The  appellant  had  denied  the  charge  in  an unsworn  defence.

13. When the  matter  came  up  for  directions,  the  parties  opted  to  proceed  by  way  of  written  submissions,  in  her  submissions,  the appellant,  chose  to  argue  all  the  grounds  of  appeal  together. She  submits  that,  it  is  not  disputed  that  the  complainant   was cheated  as  alleged  and  recorded  in  the  charge sheet,  however  central  dispute  involvement  in  committing  the  alleged  cheating,  that  led  the  complainant  to  lose money.

He submits  that  the  prosecution  did  not  proof  the  case  against  her  beyond  reasonable  doubt.

14. The  appellant  submits  that, she  was sentenced  to  pay  a fine  of  Kshs; 100,000/=  and  in default  serve  one  year  imprisonment, and In addition the  trial  magistrate  ordered  that  the amounts  which  the   complainant was  swindled  be refunded, and  in default  the  complainant to  pursue  jail remedy.

15. She  further  submits  there  were discrepancies  and  contradictions  in  the  prosecution  case,  which  raised  substantial  doubt,  which  the  trial magistrate should  have  given  to  her  credit,  and  should  have  considered  in  her  favor.

16. She submits  that  the  complainant,  did  not  produce  any  permit to  proof  that  she  was  operating  the  alleged  scrap  metal business,  or  the  fake  fertilizer.   That to the best of her knowledge,  the  fertilizer  is  sold  at  the  agro vet shop and  not  scrap metal  site,  as  the   PW1  alleged.

17. The  evidence  of  PW-1-  could not  be  relied on, for  failure  to  produce  supporting  documents,  that  she  was  operating  a  scrap  metal  business.

18. The appellant  submits  that;  the trial  magistrate   imposed  double  punishment  for  the  same  offence, by  imposing a fine  of  Kshs; 100,000 and  in default  one  year  imprisonment, and   ordering  the  appellant  to refund  the  amount  swindled.

19. She submits that, the   Trial  Magistrate  ‘Judgment’  is  double  jeopardy.  That  the  appellant  is  punished  twice  for  the  same  offence.   The appellant paid a fine of Kshs; 100,000/=, and then lodged this appeal to the High  Court.

20. That the  prosecution  failed  to  follow  the  right  procedure, during  the  recovery  of  the  alleged  fertilizer  from  the  appellant, as  they  did  not  record  an  inventory. That it  was  the  duty  of  the arresting  officer,  and  recording  officer  to  record  all the   items  recovered  in  the  inventory  form  and  the  said  form  signed  by   Appellant,  the  arresting  officer, and  independent  witness,  who  could  have  witnessed  the  alleged  recovery,   in  addition  the  prosecution  could  have  taken photographs  of  the  items  that  were  alleged  to  have been  recovered  as  supporting documents.

21. That the prosecution  just  testified  verbally  in court, without  any  documentary  evidence, cannot  support  the  charge.

22. The appellant further submits that,  the  recovery  of  the  exhibit,  was  unprocedural.  The  appellant  takes  issue  of  the  fact  that,  the   scene  of  crime was  not  photographed.  That the  Investigating  Officer failed  to  take  photographs  of  the  bottles  of  fertilizer, while  in  the  car booth ‘sic’  for  there  were  no  crime  scene  nearby.   That the  trial Magistrate  also  noted  in  his   judgment,  that  there  was  failure,  by  the  investigating  officer  to  record  inventory  form,  to  support  recovery,  of  the  alleged  bottle  of    Foliar  fertilizer  and  no  photograph  was  taken a t   crime  scene  and  produced  before  court, to support  and   proof  that  the  alleged  bottles  of  fertilizer  were  recovered  from the  booth  “sic”  of  the  motor-vehicle.

23. The appellant submits that, there was no supporting document, to proof  that  the  appellant  had  received  any  payment  from  the  complainant  as  alleged.  She submits that, it was important for  the  prosecution  to  produce  payment  receipts  issued  by  the  appellant  to acknowledge  the  transaction  of selling  and  buying  of  alleged  foliar  fertilizer,  or  invoice  record  to  acknowledge  delivery  of  the  alleged  foliar  fertilizer.  She has urged the court, to dismiss the evidence of  PW1,  on the  ground  that,  it  lacks  formal   transaction  documentary  evidence  to support  the  charge.

24. The appellant submits that the evidence was contradictory, and was not corroborated. That she submits that; there is contradiction about the business, that was conducted between third accused and the complainant.  That the appellant admitted that she received Kshs; 25,000/= from Peter Chomba in form  of  a  loan, and  she  was  to refund  back.

25. She further submits that there was contradiction, on  the  source  of  the  Kshs; 25,000/=,  that  was  sent  to  the  appellant,  whereby  the  complainant  testified  that,  she  sent  the  money  to her.  On the other hand, she submits that PW-2- Peter Chomba testified that, she is the one who  sent   the  Kshs; 25,000/= to  the  appellant. He submits that no money was transacted between her and the complainant.

26. The  appellant  further  submits  that  there  was  contradiction  on the  amount  in cash,  that  the complainant  alleged  to  have  paid.  She  submits  that,  the  evidence  does  not  support  the  charge,  the  complainant  failed  to  adduce  any   supporting  document,  to  proof  that  she  was  transacting  business  with  the  appellant.  There  was  contradiction,  in  the   evidence  of  the  witnesses  who  testified and  that  the  investigating  officer  failed  to  record  an  inventory  to support  a  recovery  of  the  alleged  items.

She prays  that  the  appeal  be   allowed  and  the  conviction be quashed.

27. For the  Respondents submissions  were  filed  by:  G. Obiri Assistant  Director  of  Public  Prosecution.   He submits that the prosecution opposes  the  appeal,  as  they   proofed  their   case  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt.  That Section 315  of   The  Penal  Code  provides  as  follows;

“Any   person  who  by  means   of any   fraudulent  trick  or  device  obtains  from  any  other  person  anything  capable  of  being  stolen,  or  induces  any  other  person,  to  deliver to  any  person anything  capable  of  being  stolen, or to pay  or  to deliver  to any person, any money  or  goods  or  greater  sum of money,  or  greater  quantity of  goods,  than  he  would  have  paid or  delivered  but  for  such  trick  or  device  is  guilty  of   a  mis demenaour  or  lliable  to  imprisonment  to  three  years”

From the above information the prosecution is required  to  proof  that;

a. That a  person  uses  a  fraudulent  means  to  obtain  something   capable  of  being  stolen.

b. The person  cheating  induces  the  other  person

c. The  person  cheated  pays  some  money  for  the  goods.

28. That  from  the  testimony  of  PW1  the   Appellant  is  the  one  who  delivered, seven  pieces  of  bottles  of  fertilizer  to  her, and  that  she  was  paid   Kshs; 70,000/=.  That  PW1  paid  Kshs; 45,000/=  in  cash  to  the  appellant,  whereas Kshs; 25,000/=  was  sent  via  Mpesa  by  one  Chomba PW2,  from  instructions  of  the  complainant. The complainant  paid  a  total amount  of  Kshs; 200,000/=

29. That on the  Analysis  of  the  purported   fertilizer,  PW5 testified  that  the  fertilizer  supplied  by  the  appellant, was  taken  to  the  Government  chemist  for  analysis  and  a  report  prepared.  That in  the  opinion of  the  analyst,  the  fertilizer  was  not  of  merchantable  quality because  in  essence the  appellant  delivered, and /or  sold  a  substance  purported  to be  fertilizer  for   mushroom  when  she  knew the same  was  not  the  right  quality.

30. That  the  appellant  in  her  defence,  denied  committing  any  offence,  wondered  why  she  was  arrested.  She did  not  however,  challenge   the  testimony  of  PW1,  that  she  made  a delivery  of  a substance,  purported  to be  fertilizer  for  mushroom.  She  also denied, receiving  any  money from  the  complainant.   That  in  essence  her  defence  was  nothing  but   a  mere  denial.

The prosecution submits that  they  have  tendered  overwhelming  evidence   on the   record  for  cheating and  urges the  court  to  dismiss  the  appeal  for  lack  of  merit.

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION.

I  have  considered  the  proceedings  before  the  trial magistrate,  and   the submissions  by  the  appellant  as  well  as  the  ground  of  appeal  and  the  submissions   by  the  respondents.

31. This being a first  appeal,  this  court  has  a duty  to  evaluate  the  evidence  tendered  before  the  trial Magistrate, and  come  up  with  its  own  finding.

32. This  was  held  in the  case  of:  Okeno  -versus- Republic  (1972) E.A 32.

Further  in the  case  of;   Mwana Sokoni –versus -  Kenya  Bus  Services  Limited  ( 1982- 88) 1 K.A.R 278,  and  Kiruga  -versus – Kiruga ( 1988)  KLR 716.  Where it was  stated:

“ On a  first  appeal,  it  is  now  well settled,  the  role  of  the   Court,  is  to  revisit  the  evidence  on  record,  evaluate  it,  and  reach  its  own  conclusion.  However,  the  court  will not  interfere  with   findings  of  facts  of  the  trial  court,  unless  they  were  based  on  no  evidence  at all.  Or  a  misapprehension  of  it,  or  the  court  is  shown  demonstrably  to  have  acted  on  wrong  principles  in  reaching  its  finding.”

33. The appellant, chose to argue all the grounds of appeal together, and  forms  her  submissions, four issues  arise   for  determination, and  this  are;

(i) Double punishment for the same offence.

(ii) Contradictions.

(iii) That the  charge  was not  proofed  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt.

(iv) Unprocedural recovery of  exhibits.

(i) Double  Punishment.

From the record, the appellant was  fined  Kshs; 100,000/=  in  default   one  year  imprisonment.  The trial magistrate further ordered that, the appellant will also refund the complainant, the amount swindled, and in default  the  complainant  to  pursue  jail  remedy.

34. The appellant was charged under Section 315 of The Penal code.  Which I have quoted above.  And the particulars stated that, by means of fraud, they cheat  Mary  Wambui  Ndegwa  to pay  a  sum  of  Kshs; 270,000/=  so  that,  they could  deliver  to  her  foliar  fertilizer.  The appellant was found guilty of the charge and was convicted.

Section 31 of The Penal Code Cap 63 of   The laws of Kenya,provides:

“any person who is convicted of an offence, may be adjudged to make compensation to any person injured by his   offence, and the compensation may be either in addition to, or in substitution for any other   punishment.”

35. The trial court has discretion under this  section  to order  compensation which  may  be  in  addition,  or  in  substitution  for  any  other  punishment.  And  such  compensation  may be  ordered,  upon  the  person  being  convicted,  in  which  case  it  is  in addition  to  the  punishment,  or  in substitution of  the  punishment   thereof.

Under Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure code, Cap 75  of  the  laws  of  Kenya.

“ It  is  provided,  if  a  person  guilty  of  an  offence,  mentioned  in  chapters  XXIV, XXX1 both  inclusive,  of  the  Penal  code,  in  stealing,  taking, obtaining, extorting, converting, or  disposing off,  or  in knowingly  receiving,  any  property,  is  prosecuted  to conviction  by   on  or  behalf  of  the  owner  of  the  property,  the  property  shall be  restored to the  owner  or  his  respective  representative.”

36. In every case referred to in this Section, the court before whom the offender   is convicted, may award   from time to time award writs of restitution for the property or order the restitution   thereof in a summary   manner.

37. Under this Section, where a person is convicted for offences related to appropriating property, the court must order the offender to pay   restitution, to owner of the property.

38. In this case; the appellant was charged with cheating, and obtaining, or receiving a sum of Kshs; 270,000/= through fraud or trick.  She was convicted of the offence, and   in addition to the fine, the trial magistrate ordered her to refund the amount which they swindled the complainant.

39. In the circumstances, the order by the trial magistrate for the appellant to  refund  the  money,  which  she  had  obtained,  or  which  she had  received  from  the  complainant  through  fraud, and  cheating,  was  within  the  law  and  does  not  amount  to  double  punishment  or  double  jeopardy.

40. It is not clear whether the complainant moved to enforce the order by the trial magistrate.  Section 178 of Criminal Procedure Code provides that;

“where the order made for the appellant to pay compensation, is appealable to the High Court,”

The trial Magistrate had jurisdiction to order a refund upon conviction of the appellant.  This ground of appeal is therefore without merit.

(ii) CONTRADICTIONS:

The appellant has submitted that there was contradiction about the business that was conducted between 3rd accused and the complainant.

After considering the evidence tendered by the Prosecution, I find that there were no contradictions on material particulars, nor are there contradictions which cast doubt on the prosecutions’ evidence.

41. The court ignores minor contradictions, which do not show that the   witnesses deliberately told lies to court.

42. The Court of Appeal in the case of; Eric Onyango Ondeng -versus -  Republic, (2014) eKLR  C. A  the court  held  that;  when  dealing  with  the issue  of  contradictions stated  as  follows;

“ nor  do  think  much  stands  on  the  alleged  contradictions, on the  time of  commission  of  the  offence,  the  trial  court  after  hearing  all the  evidence,   accepts  that  the  offence  was  committed  about  7p.m,  in  accordance  with  the  evidence  of   PW2.  As noted by  the  Ugandan  Court  of  Appeal  in;  Twehangane  Alfred  -versus -  Uganda  Criminal  Appeal No. 139  of  2001 (2003) UGCA 6.  It is not every contradiction that  warrants  rejection  of  evidence.  As the Court  put  it,  “ with  regard  to  contradictions  in  the  Prosecution  case,”  the  Law  has  set  out  in  numerous  authorities,

“ is  that  grave  contradictions,  unless  satisfactorily  explained,  will  usually  but  not  necessarily,  lead  to  the   evidence  of  a  witness  being  rejected.

The  court  will ignore minor  contradictions  unless the  court  thinks that, they  point to deliberate,  untruthfulness,  or  if,  they do  not  affect,  the  main  substance  of  the  prosecutions’  case.”

43. The trial  Magistrate  after  analyzing  the  evidence  found  that; nor  doubt   had been  created.  I  find  that  the  minor  contradictions  pointed  out  by  the  appellant,  are  not  on  material  particulars,  nor  do  they  raise  any  doubt,  in  the  prosecution’s  evidence.  Such contradictions must  be  ignored.

I  therefore  find  that  this  ground  is  without  merits.

(iii) UNPROCEDURAL RECOVERY OF   EXHIBITS.

I  have  considered  the  ground, and  I  find  that  there  was  cogent  evidence  which  was  well  corroborated  on  how  the   exhibits  were  recovered.   I find  that  failure  to take  the  photograph  of  the  exhibits,  at  the  place  where  they  were  recovered,  does  not  shake  the  strong  evidence  tendered  by  the  prosecution, that  the  exhibits  were  recovered  in  the  manner  the  witness  testified,  they  were  produced  in  court,  and  no  prejudice  was  occasioned  by  the  failure  to  produce  an  inventory,  or  photographic  exhibit.

The ground is therefore without merits.   In any case, the evidence of PW4, and PW5 on how they  recovered  the  exhibits,  was  not  challenged.

(iv)  PROOF   BEYOND  ANY  REASONABLE DOUBT.

The appellant, was  charged with   cheating  under  Section  315  of  Penal  Code.   The prosecution had the burden  to  proof  that,  the  appellant  used  fraudulent  means   to  obtain  something  capable  of  being  stolen  from  the  complainant.   That the appellant induced the   complainant, and  that  the  complainant  paid  some  money  for  the  goods.  In this case, the complainant gave  evidence how  he was  called  by  Cyrus  Murage  Gakugi  on  17th  February, 2015 and  he  finally  told  her  that  he  was  going  to  send  somebody  to deliver,  what  was  purported  to be  mushroom fertilizer.

44. It is  the   appellant, went  and  delivered  7  pieces  of   bottles  of  fertilizer  to  PW-1-  and  was  paid  KShs; 70,000/=.  The prosecution proofed that the appellant was paid Kshs; 45,000/= in cash, and Kshs; 25,000/= was sent to her through Mpesa money transfer by one Peter Chomba  (PW-2-), and   the  complainant  had  paid  Kshs: 200,000/= and  together  with  what  she  paid  the  appellant,  the  total  amount   which  the  complainant  paid,  was  Kshs; 270,000/=  Thousand.

45. In her submissions,  the  appellant  submitted  that  it  is  not  disputed “that  the  complainant  was  cheated, as  alleged  and  recorded  in  the  charge  sheet”  the  charge  sheet  states  that;  it  is  the  appellant  and  others  were  convicted,  cheated  the  complainant,  and  as  such  the  evidence   by  the  complainant  was  not  challenged  by  the  appellant,  in  view  of  the  above  admission.  The defence of the  appellant,  was  a  general  mere denial.

46. From the  evidence  tendered  by  the  complainant,  it  is  clear  that  the appellant was  involved with  her co-accused’s’  in  cheating  the  complainant.   The trial magistrate found that the 3rd  accused  was  the  man  playing  the  cards,  while  using  appellant 1 and  2  as  conduits  to   conceal  his  identification. And finally held that the appellant acted   independently towards one objective,  that  of  cheating  the  complainant,  in  a deal  they  were  all  sure  they  were  out  to swindle  the  complainant  money.

47. There  is  no  doubt  that,  the  appellant  was  involved  in  the fraud,  and  cheating  the  complainant.  And  did  indeed  swindle her  cash  Kshs; 270,000/=  Thousand  shillings.   The prosecution  proved  that   the  fertilizer  which  the  appellant  and  her  co-accused  supplied  the  complainant, was   fake as  per  the  Government  analyst  report.

48. The prosecution  discharged  the  burden  to  proof  the  charge,  against  the  appellant  beyond any   reasonable  doubt.

49. The appeal is therefore without merit and  is  dismissed

Dated at Kerugoya this 18th day of May 2020.

L.W. GITARI

JUDGE