Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedSecond Appeals from Machakos (consolidated)

Karingo & 2 others v Republic (Criminal Appeal 63 & 105 of 1981 (Consolidated)) [1982] KECA 23 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
15 March 1982
ELE.J.E LawCMC.H.E MillerKPK.D Potter
3,587 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed three convictions for handling stolen cameras, clarifying that guilty knowledge must exist at the moment of receiving stolen goods.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal (Law, Miller and Potter JJAA) heard consolidated second appeals by Karingo, Tiara and Wangombe against convictions for handling stolen goods and, in the case of Karingo and Tiara, for uttering and forging a cash sale receipt. The appellants had been acquitted by the Senior Resident Magistrate at Machakos of stealing goods in transit but convicted of dishonestly receiving stolen cameras taken from an Akamba Bus Company lorry on 14 June 1979, receiving the mandatory seven-year sentences; the High Court (Nyarangi J) dismissed their first appeals save for ordering Karingo's six-month uttering sentence to run concurrently. On second appeal, the court reiterated that such appeals are confined to points of law and that concurrent findings of fact stand unless based on no evidence. It held that mens rea for handling must exist at the time of receipt, applying Ratilal v R, and found on all the circumstances - false police claims, an incredible tracing story, offers to sell, and the forged receipt traceable to Wangombe's receipt book and stamp - that each appellant knew or had reason to believe the cameras were stolen. Applying Samuels v Republic and Welham v DPP, it held that uttering a forged receipt to deceive a police officer into refraining from action was fraudulent within Section 353 of the Penal Code. All three appeals were dismissed and the convictions affirmed; no costs order was recorded.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether there was evidence that the parcels containing the cameras were loaded onto Nzyuko's lorry and stolen
  2. 2.Whether guilty knowledge (mens rea) at the time of receiving was proved against each appellant on the handling charges
  3. 3.Whether Karingo's uttering of the forged receipt was shown to be fraudulent within Section 353 of the Penal Code
  4. 4.Whether any point of law arose to disturb the concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below

Key legal issues

#
01

Mens rea at the time of receiving stolen goods

Holding

Guilty knowledge must exist at the time of receipt, and is established by considering all circumstances of the accused's continued possession; innocent explanations disbelieved by concurrent findings satisfy the requirement.

Reasoning

The court accepted Sir William Duffus's statement in Ratilal v R that mens rea must exist at receipt. It then examined Karingo's explanations: the false claim of handing cameras to Kibwezi police, contradicted by the Lost and Found register; the incredible story of sending cameras 170 miles to trace owners; and the denial of producing the forged receipt. These circumstances established that possession was dishonest and that he knew or had reason to believe the goods were stolen at receipt.

p. 4
02

Fraudulent intent in uttering a forged document

Holding

Uttering a forged receipt to a police officer to deceive him into believing property was lawfully acquired, so that he refrains from taking action, is uttering fraudulently within Section 353 of the Penal Code.

Reasoning

Following Samuels v Republic, which applied Welham v DPP, the court held that intent to deceive a public officer into refraining from action he would otherwise take is fraudulent intent. Karingo produced the forged receipt to make Inspector Mwangi believe the cameras had been lawfully bought abroad, thereby intending the Inspector to refrain from arresting or prosecuting him. That was precisely the Samuels situation and the conviction was proper.

p. 5
03

Scope of second appeal to concurrent findings of fact

Holding

A second appeal is confined to points of law; concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below bind the Court of Appeal unless based on no evidence.

Reasoning

The court reiterated the Reuben Karari test: whether there was any evidence on which the trial court could find as it did. It applied this to the submissions that there was no evidence the cameras were loaded on the lorry or stolen, and to the findings that the receipt was forged and uttered, holding in each case that ample evidence supported the findings and no point of law arose.

p. 4
04

Circumstantial inference of guilty knowledge (Wangombe and Tiara)

Holding

A person in possession of stolen goods whose explanation is not reasonably possibly true, and who supplies the means of forging a supporting document, knows or has reason to believe the goods are stolen.

Reasoning

Wangombe admitted possession, displayed only one camera, initially denied having any, and the forged receipt came from his receipt book bearing his stamp. The court drew the irresistible inference that he enabled the forgery. Tiara's offer to sell a stolen camera to the undercover inspector and his admitted writing of the receipt defeated his innocent-explanation defence; the concurrent findings that his explanations were unbelievable stood.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A second appeal to the Court of Appeal is confined to points of law; the court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are based on no evidence.
  • The test on second appeal is whether there was any evidence on which the trial court could find as it did.
  • The necessary mens rea for handling stolen goods must exist at the time of receipt.
  • Uttering a false document to deceive a public officer into refraining from action he would otherwise have taken is done with fraudulent intent.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeals of all three appellants are dismissed
  2. 2.Convictions on the handling charges (counts 2, 3 and 4) affirmed
  3. 3.Tiara's conviction for forging receipt No 8175 (count 5) affirmed
  4. 4.Karingo's conviction for uttering the forged receipt (count 6) affirmed

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

EL
majority

Wrote the judgment

CM
majority

Wrote the judgment

KP
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya
Jurisdiction invoked
Second appeal to the Court of Appeal, confined to points of law

Relief refused

#

Karingo's appeal against conviction on handling and uttering counts

Possession was dishonest and mens rea at receipt was established; fraudulent intent in uttering the forged receipt was proved

p. 5

Tiara's appeals against conviction on both counts

No point of law fit for consideration was advanced; concurrent findings of fact stood

p. 5

Wangombe's appeal against conviction on the handling charge

His explanation for possession was not reasonably possibly true; the irresistible inference was that he supplied the blank receipt and stamp enabling the forgery

p. 5

Costs

No costs order recorded in the judgment

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

A second appeal must be confined to points of law and this Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact arrived at in the two courts below unless based on no evidence.
p. 4Scope of second appeal
The necessary mens rea must exist at the time of the receipt of the stolen goods so that it must be established that the accused person knew at the time of the receipt that the goods were stolen or that he had reason to believe.
p. 4Mens rea in handling stolen goods
where a person utters a false document intending to deceive a public officer, and by that deceit to cause the public officer to take action which he would not otherwise have taken or to refrain from action which he would otherwise have taken, that intent was fraudulent
p. 5Fraudulent intent in uttering
For these reasons, we consider that the appeals of all three appellants fail and we order that they be dismissed.
p. 5Final orders
All these matters satisfy us, as they did both courts below, that the appellant Karingo’s possession of the cameras was dishonest, and that when he received them he knew, or had reason to believe, that they had been stolen.
p. 4Finding of guilty knowledge at receipt

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (12)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karingo & 2 others v Republic (Criminal Appeal 63 & 105 of 1981 (Consolidated)) [1982] KECA 23 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1982). Second Appeals from Machakos (consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1982/23/eng@1982-03-15

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.