Republic v Matheka (Criminal Case E1107 of 2021) [2026] KEMC 129 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Makindu court acquitted a man of stealing over Ksh. 296,000 because prosecutors offered only spoken testimony, no documents or proper investigation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the complainants' money was stolen as alleged
No – the loss was not proved by cogent evidence; no documentary or business records were produced for either count.
For count one, the only evidence was the 1st complainant's word of mouth that she gave the accused Ksh. 229,000/= with no acknowledgment of receipt. For count two, the reconciliation showing a deficit of Ksh. 67,290/= was never produced, and no records proved the Mpesa agency or the loss. The court held that mere oral testimony was insufficient for proof of such transactions.
Whether the accused person was linked to the alleged offences
No – the evidence did not link the accused to the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused denied being present at Kibwezi on 7/1/2019 and denied the complainants were his employers. No records proved the alleged employment, and the investigating officer was not called, so the basis of the arrest was unknown. The court found the evidence left room for assumption and amounted to mere suspicion, which cannot found a conviction.
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
No – the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt was not met, and the accused was acquitted on both counts.
The court restated the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, citing comparative and English authority, and held that a reasonable doubt exists where the court cannot say with moral certainty that a person is guilty. After analysing the evidence, it found the prosecution case fell short of the standard and resolved the doubt in the accused's favour.
Legal principles established
#- Suspicion, however strong, cannot provide a basis for inferring guilt which must be proved by evidence.
- The prosecution bears the duty of proving the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt; the accused has no duty to prove innocence.
- A reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused person.
Court orders
#- 1.The accused person is found not guilty of the offence of Stealing contrary to section 275 of the Penal Code in respect of both counts
- 2.The accused person is acquitted of both charges
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance criminal trial for the offence of Stealing contrary to section 268(1) as read with section 275 of the Penal Code
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Matheka (Criminal Case E1107 of 2021) [2026] KEMC 129 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/129/eng@2026-05-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.