Republic v Rono & 2 others (Criminal Case E2050 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 350 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court acquitted former Uasin Gishu Governor Mandago and two officials of all charges in the Finland education programme case because the prosecution's evidence failed.
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 prosecution, at the close of its case, established a prima facie case against the accused persons on any count requiring them to be put on their defence under section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Key legal issues
#Conspiracy to commit a felony (Count I) - meeting of minds
No prima facie case; no evidence of an agreement or common intention to steal, and the Kshs 1.1 billion figure was evidentially unsupported.
The court found no express agreement among the accused; the 2nd and 3rd accused were not signatories to the Trust Account; the 1st Accused's actions aligned with his lawful county appointment; and the investigating officer's 1.1 billion figure contradicted the bank official's evidence that the account never held more than Kshs 35 million. Without a forensic audit, the inflated figure dented the credibility of the investigations and the charge appeared intended to embarrass and intimidate.
Stealing (Counts II, III, IV)
No prima facie case established against the 1st and 2nd Accused.
The essential ingredients of fraudulent and dishonest taking and intent to permanently deprive were not established. Witnesses confirmed withdrawn funds went to fees, allowances, furniture and visa fees for the programme. The investigating officer could not explain the figures in the charge sheet, ignored the task force findings of only Kshs 8 million unaccounted for, and the 2nd Accused was not even a signatory to the Trust Account, demonstrating shoddy and careless investigations.
Abuse of office (Counts V-VIII)
No prima facie case established on any of the four counts.
The prosecution's reliance on Republic v Nyanamba, an authority on section 46 of ACECA, was misplaced given that section 101(1) creates a distinct offence requiring proof of an arbitrary act and prejudice. No prejudice was shown to the county or victims; the advertisement was clear the programme was not a scholarship; and the evidence established that secondment of staff was done by the Chief Officer/County Secretary, not the 3rd Accused.
Forgery (Counts IX and X)
No prima facie case established against either Accused.
No one saw the 1st Accused make the documents, and the cognate offence of uttering was not charged. The 2nd Accused's handwriting was never examined. The forensic document examiner's report was based on photocopies rather than primary evidence as required by sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act, and the credibility of the witnesses denying their signatures was doubtful given evidence of their awareness of, and benefit from, the Trust.
Legal principles established
#- A prima facie case is one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and evidence, could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence; mere suspicion or a scintilla of evidence is not enough.
- The burden of proof in a criminal trial lies on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused.
- Conspiracy requires proof of a meeting of minds or common intention among the accused, proved by clear admissible evidence and not by conjecture.
- An accused should not be put on his defence to prop up an otherwise hopeless case.
- Artificially inflated figures in a charge sheet to intimidate or embarrass an accused may amount to an abuse of process and violate the right to a fair hearing under Article 50.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of all charges against the accused persons pursuant to section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code
- 2.Acquittal of all accused persons of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony, Stealing, Abuse of Office and Forgery contrary to sections 393, 268(1) as read with section 275, 101 as read with 102(a), 345 and 347(d)(ii) of the Penal Code respectively
- 3.Refund of the cash bails deposited in court to the depositors
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original criminal jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over the Penal Code counts, with rulings made under sections 210 and 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75
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.
I thus do hereby dismiss all the charges against the accused person pursuant to the provisions of section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code and consequently acquit all of them of the ofiences of Conspiracy to Commit a felony, Stealing, Abuse of Ofice and Forgery contrary to sections 393,268(1) as red with section 275, 101 as read with 102(a), 345 and 347(d) (ii), all of the Penal Code, respectively. Their cash bails deposited herein be refunded back to the depositors.
I find that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case in any of the charges herein.
Refunds can be sought in a civil forum as the main purpose of a criminal trial is to punish an ofiender and not to collect debt.
It simply makes a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove their guilt and they are therefore constitutionally deemed to be innocent.
at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is ofiered by the defence
The onus is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and a prima face case is not made out if at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one which on full consideration might possibly be thought suficient to sustain a conviction.
the prosecution failed to prove that there was a meeting of minds to constitute the ofience of a conspiracy to commit a felony
This charge therefore smacks of a hurried investigation done unprofessionally without the benefit of a forensic audit.
Issues in the judgment
#The forgery counts are misnumbered - the first forgery count is labelled 'Count IX' twice, and later analysis refers to 'Counts IX and X' although no Count X heading was ever stated.
The charge amounts in the stealing counts as analysed by the court differ from the particulars earlier set out in the judgment.
The court appears to refer to PW6 both as Joel Korir (director of the fund) and as Joel Kipkorir Ruto, Director of the UGCERF, in its analysis.
The judgment refers to 'Count VII' twice in the abuse of office analysis where Count VIII (secondment of staff) was evidently meant.
The prosecution's submissions are recorded as citing a future-dated authority (Gathanji v Republic [2026] KEHC 513).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Rono & 2 others (Criminal Case E2050 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 350 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/350/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.