Samuel Alwenda Oyani v Republic [1993] KECA 86 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed a conviction for demanding money with menaces, holding that threats don't need detailed particulars and demands can be implied from conduct.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the charge was incurably defective for failure to particularise the menaces alleged in the offence of demanding property with menaces under section 302 of the Penal Code
- 2.Whether the demand of Kshs 150,000/- attributed to the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt
Key legal issues
#Sufficiency of particulars of menaces in a charge under section 302 of the Penal Code
The charge was not incurably defective; the omission of the nature of the menaces was not fatal.
The essentials of the offence are a demand of a valuable thing, with menaces or force, and with intent to steal. Once the demand with menaces is stipulated in the particulars, the sufficiency of the menaces is disclosed by the facts. The test is objective - whether the menaces would affect a person of ordinary firm courage - not whether the victim was in fact alarmed. Any deficiency was curable under section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the complainant's evidence manifested the menaces from the outset.
Whether the demand was proved beyond reasonable doubt where the demand was initially made by others
The demand was proved; the appellant took over the demand made by the Chites and his conduct manifested both the menaces and the demand.
A demand under section 302 need not be express; an ordinary reasonable person's understanding drawn from the accused's conduct and the circumstances suffices. The appellant, a police officer, raised the threat of a murder charge against the complainant and actively pursued the handover of Kshs 150,000/- to himself to settle the contaminated-vodka complaint. By blowing up an innocent situation he associated himself with the Chites' initial demand.
Legal principles established
#- In a charge under section 302 of the Penal Code, once the demand with menaces of the valuable thing is stipulated in the particulars of the offence, failure to particularise the nature of the menaces does not render the charge defective; the sufficiency of the menaces is a matter to be disclosed by the facts of the case.
- For the offence of demanding property with menaces, the demand need not be express; it may be inferred from the conduct or demeanour of the accused and the circumstances of the case.
- The test for menaces is whether they were such, if proved, as would be likely to operate on a person ordinarily firm and courageous minded; it need not be proved that the victim was in fact alarmed.
Court orders
#- 1.The second appeal was dismissed and the conviction for demanding property with menaces contrary to section 302 of the Penal Code, as upheld by the first appellate court, was left to stand
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court (first appellate court)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code
Relief refused
#Quashing of the conviction on the ground that the charge was fatally defective for non-particularisation of the menaces
Once the demand with menaces of the valuable thing is stipulated in the particulars, the sufficiency of the menaces is a matter disclosed by the facts of the case; failure to particularise the menaces did not render the charge defective
Setting aside the conviction on the ground that the demand was not proved beyond reasonable doubt
The demand need not be express; it could be deduced from the appellant's conduct, and the appellant took over the demand made by the Chites
Costs
No costs order stated in the judgment (criminal appeal)
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.
The essentials of the offence under the foregoing section are that the accused person demanded a valuable thing from some person ; that he demanded it with menaces or force; and that he demanded it with intent to steal.
The test for menaces in the offence under section 302, supra, is the answer to the question whether the menaces were such, if proved, that they were likely to operate on a person ordinarily firm and courageous minded.
In this appeal therefore, failure to particularize the menaces alleged against the appellant did not render the charge against him for the offence under the aforementioned section defective.
For the purpose of the offence under section 302 of the Penal Code, the demand for a valuable thing need not be express. The conduct or demeanour of the accused person and the circumstances of the case may be such that an ordinary reasonable man would understand that a demand for the valuable thing in question was being made upon him.
There is therefore no merit in his complaint before us that the demand of Kshs 150,000/- attributed to him was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the appeal number or the citation of this appeal, nor the courts' case numbers below.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Samuel Alwenda Oyani v Republic [1993] KECA 86 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1993). Criminal Appeal (not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1993/86/eng@1993-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.