Nicholas Njoroge Kimani v Republic [2014] KECA 474 (KLR)

IN THE  COURT OF APPEAL

AT NAIROBI

(CORAM:   MWERA,  MWILU  & ODEK,  JJA)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.274 OF 2010

BETWEEN

NICHOLAS NJOROGE  KIMANI……………………….........APPELLANT

AND

REPUBLIC……………………………….............................RESPONDENT

(Being an appeal from the Judgment of the High  Court of Kenya  at

Nairobi (Lesiit & Ochieng,  JJ) dated 15th  July, 2010

in

H.C.CR.A. NO.226 OF 2007)

******************

JUDGMENT OF THE  COURT

The appellant  herein, Nicholas Njoroge  Kimani,faced  three counts in the lower court at Kiambu in  that on  23rd  July, 2006  at Kihara Police  Post, Kiambu, jointly  with others not before  court while  armed with iron bars and rungus  robbed APC Peter  Njoguof  a  firearm  No.40099 with  25  rounds of ammunition and  they used  actual violence  during  the said  robbery on  APC Njogu.

In the second count, the appellant faced a charge of being  in  possession of  a  firearm   No.40099  on  7th    August,  2006   at  Mahi  Mahiu  without  due certificate.  The third charge was that at the same place and time the appellant was  found   in   possession   of  21  rounds  of  ammunition  without  a  firearm certificate.

After hearing eleven prosecution witnesses as well as the defence, the learned trial magistrate found  the appellant guilty on all the 3 counts and sentenced  him  to suffer death on  the first  count  and  to serve  ten years in prison for counts two and  three.  The learned trial magistrate ordered that the sentences  be  served  concurrently,  the  order  the  High   Court  corrected  by directing   that  the  death  sentence   be  served   first  while   the  prison  terms remained suspended.

Being aggrieved by the decision  of the lower court, the appellant appealed to the   High    Court   (Lesiit    &  Ochieng,    JJ.)on    grounds  that   included circumstantial evidence relied on by the trial court.  That it was weak and that the appellant’s identification  was  not positive.   The  learned Judges’  decision was, as the learned trial  magistrate found, that identification was not positive but  they concurred in  the finding  that  circumstantial  evidence  centering on recent possession  of the gun  and  ammunition, was sufficient to convict on all the three counts.  Thus  conviction and sentences were confirmed.

The  appellant  was  further  dissatisfied with that judgment  and  he filed the present appeal.

Mr.  K.  A.  Nyachoti, learned counsel for the appellant, filed a supplementary  memorandum  of  appeal   with  five   grounds  which  globally formed the basis  of his  arguments.  The appeal was opposed by Ms M. Oundo, Assistant Director of Public  Prosecutions.

From the  grounds  of  appeal  which  ranged from  identification, reevaluation and  fresh analysis of the evidence  in  the High  Court, insufficient evidence  and  proof of  recent  possession,   Mr.  Nyachotichose  to  argue the ground of recent possession  only.

Counsel posited that there was no proof that the appellant was found  in exclusive possession  of the bag containing the firearm and ammunition said to have  been  robbed from the complainant  APC Njogu(PW1) some  fifteen days earlier.  He advanced  reasons that the appellant had been in company of about five other people in  the cabin  of the lorry which he allegedly  ran from when  it was stopped at a police road block  and  PC Felix Ngumbi(PW7), in company of other police officers, proceeded to search it.  Mr.  Nyachoticontinued that even as it was claimed  by  the prosecution that members of the public, along  with CPL. Elias Opiyo(PW8), gave chase of the appellant, none of those members of the  public  was  presented   to  testify   that  during  the  chase,   the  appellant dropped the bag containing the gun and the ammunition.  In essence counsel’s position was that CPL. Opiyo’sevidence was not supported by independent testimony from any member of the public present yet the appellant had denied being  in  exclusive  possession  of the gun  and  ammunition.   Thus  he  neither committed the robbery with violence offence nor had  the firearms without due certificates.  To the appellant’s side,  the people who  were in  possession  of the bag containing a gun  and ammunition were the lorry crew, Peter Chege(PW4) and Joshua  Nyamai(PW5).

In  opposing  the appeal  Ms Oundomaintained  that Peter Chege(PW4), Joshua  Nyamai(PW5), AP CPL Moses Onyango(PW6) and  PC Felix Ngumbi(PW7) gave direct evidence  of seeing the appellant with the bag that contained the gun  and  ammunition on the material  date,  15  days  after APC Njoguwas robbed of the same.   That the two courts below  made  concurrent  findings  of fact on this issue  of recent possession,  and that should not be disturbed.   She referred to Section  4 of the Penal  Code defining recent  possession  concluding that it was not the number of witnesses that is obliged  to prove a fact (Section 143  of the Evidence  Act).   A single  credible witness could  still do so.   To her, the  evidence  before  the  trial  court  was  sufficient  to  convict and  calling  a member of the public from the scene of arrest,  was of no moment.  And  that the appellant’s conduct of running away when  the lorry he was in was stopped for search was one of a guilty mind.

In response Mr.  Nyachotiargued that had  the appellant to be convicted in the circumstances, it could  be on possession  of a gun  and ammunition only

– not robbery with violence.

This   being  a  second  appeal  our  duty  under  Section  361(1)  of  the Criminal Procedure  Codeand as enunciated in many  decisions  of this Court, including the case of Njoroge vs Republic [1982] KLR 388is set out thus:

“On a  second  appeal, the Court of  Appeal is only concerned with points of law.  On such an  appeal, the Court was  bound by the concurrent findings of fact made  by the lower courts, unless   those  findings   were   shown    not  to  be   based   on evidence.”

On   this  issue   of  recent   possession   of  the  gun   and   ammunition  by   the appellant,  the lower court went over  the evidence  of the crew of the lorry in which the appellant had hiked a lift – Peter Chege(PW4) and Joshua  Nyamai(PW5).  They had offered him  a lift and he came on board with a bag.  Then the learned magistrate focused  on  the evidence  of police  officers AP CPL. Moses

Onyango(PW6) and  PC Felix Ngumbi(PW7) who  stopped  and  searched the lorry in  which the appellant  was.    He made  to flee with his  bag  but he was chased and arrested.  The bag contained the gun  and ammunition in question. The learned magistrate then concluded:

“There  is overwhelming evidence that the accused  had  the handbag that  had   the gun  and   ammunitions  as  well as  a black mask.   I  find  that  the prosecution  has   established beyond  any  reasonable doubts  that the accused  person  had the firearm  and   ammunitions without  firearms  certificate. The gun and the ammunitions the accused (was) found in possession  of,  were  robbed  of  the APC Peter Weru  Njogu  on

23. 7.06.    The   accused   was   found in  their  possession   on

7/8/2006 … 15  days  after the robbery.    This  is an  apt case for me to invoke  the doctrine of recent possession  and  I find that he should have been one of the robbers.”

Thus  on evidence before him,  the learned trial magistrate found  the fact of the appellant being in exclusive  and recent possession  of the subject exhibits proved.

When   the  appellant   went  before   the  High   Court  and   Mr.   Ondiekipresented  his   appeal  on  grounds  including  recent possession,   the  learned judges  reviewed  the evidence  before  the lower court, as per all the witnesses referred to earlier, and delivered themselves thus:

“We  have  considered  the rival  arguments  of  counsels  (sic). We do not agree  with Mr. Ondieki that the issue of possession of the sub machine gun  and  the rounds  of ammunition, that the evidence against the appellant is purely circumstantial evidence.   There  was  direct evidence by four witnesses.   That the  appellant  was   in  possession   of  the  bag  identified  as exhibit 5,  in which the submachine gun Exh.1 and  21  rounds of ammunitions Exh.2 were found.”

In conclusion:

“The  evidence  of PW4,  5,  6  and  7  is direct evidence  that the appellant  had   possession   of  the  paper  bag  in  which the firearm and  ammunitions were  recovered.     The  evidence  of these  witnesses   is  not   that  of  circumstantial  nature  but direct  evidence   of   possession.   ­­­we  find  that  there  was sufficient evidence to positively prove that the appellant was in actual possession of the firearm and  ammunition, 15  days after they were stolen from the complainant.”

For our part  we  are similarly  satisfied from  the foregoing concurrent findings of fact by the two lower courts that the appellant was found  in  actual and  exclusive  possession  of the gun  and  ammunition that APC Njogu(PW1) had  recently been  robbed of in  accordance with  Section  4 of the Penal  Code which reads:

“Possession” –

(a) “be  in possession  of”  or  “have  in possession”  includes  not only  having   in   one’s   own   person    possession,   but   also knowingly having anything in actual  possession  or  custody of     any   other  person,    or   having  anything  in  any   place (whether  belonging  to or  occupied  by oneself  or  not)  for the use or benefit of oneself or any  other person.

(b) ­­­”

We are indeed  satisfied that the High  Court properly considered whether the appellant had been found  in recent possession  of the gun and ammunition.

The earned Judges  appreciated  the case of  Isaac Nanga  Kahiga v Republic

Cr.A.272 of 2005where this Court held:

“It is trite  law that  before a  court of  law can  rely on  the doctrine of recent possession as a basis of conviction in a criminal case,  the possession  must be positively proved.    In other  words,   there  must  be  positive   proof,   first  that  the property was  found with  the suspect, and  secondly  that the property   is  positively  the   property   of   the  complainant, thirdly  that  the property was  recently stolen from the complainant.  The  proof  at the time, as has  been stated over and  over again, will depend  on the easiness  with which the stolen properties can move from one to another.”

The learned Judges  concluded that a gun  and ammunition cannot easily  move from one person to another.  We agree.  We are also clear in our minds that the said  items could  not have  been  in  possession  of either  or some  of the other

people in the lorry or specifically Peter Chege(PW4) or Joshua  Nyamai(PW5)

– the lorry  crew as  Mr.  Nyachotisuggested,  as  no  evidence  exists to make such  a suggestion  viable.    Accordingly, the findings of fact by  the two courts below  were  based  on sound  evidence.   And  rather  than discharge the burden that fell  on  him  upon  being  found   in  possession,  that of explaining how  he came about the recently stolen gun and ammunition, the appellant squandered the opportunity by a mere evasive denial.  In the result we find  that possessive, and  exclusive  possession  of that, was effectively  proved and  so we do not find the basis to interfere with the conviction and sentences herein.

In the result, we dismiss this appeal in its entirety.

Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 11th day of July,  2014

J. W. MWERA

……………………….....................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

P. M. MWILU

………………………......................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

J. OTIENO  ODEK (PROF)

……………………….......................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

I certify that this is a true copy of the original

jkc

DEPUTY REGISTRAR