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

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.

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.

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.

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.