Shula Songa Makwata & 1 other v Republic

The Court held the Count 1 acquittal was technical, arising from a charge that failed to identify the document bearing the forged signature. The Count 2 acquittal reflected insufficiency of Land Control Board evidence, not a finding that the land was lawfully transferred. The cane contract was a document representing rights of economic value, legally distinct from land ownership, so its unlawful transfer remained intermeddling with the deceased's estate notwithstanding the acquittals.

The charge concerned making the document without authority, and where it was presented after uttering was merely evidence of uttering. The appellants did not contest the document's authenticity at trial; their defence vacillated between denial and affirming its genuineness. Multiple copies were presented to different authorities, and compelling circumstantial evidence showed the appellants uttered the document; they failed to explain their possession of it.

The first appellate judge gave three reasons for disbelieving the letter: the appellants offered no satisfactory explanation for not presenting it at trial; the information was never tested by cross-examination, so its probative value was low; and uncontroverted evidence placed the death in Trans Nzoia, outside Bungoma's registry. The Court of Appeal found no error in that assessment amenable to reversal on a second appeal limited to law.