Republic v Wachira (Criminal Case 2288 of 2015) [2017] KEMC 129 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nyahururu court acquitted an agrovet operator because selling veterinary drugs is not the same as 'practising' veterinary medicine, and prosecutors needed but lacked DPP consent.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant was practising veterinary medicine within the meaning of section 14 of the VSVPA
No; the evidence showed only that she was an attendant possibly offering drugs for sale, not dispensing or administering veterinary medicines to animals.
Section 14 defines practice as including dispensing or administration of veterinary medicines, diagnosis, treatment and related services. 'Dispensing' is undefined in the VSVPA and the Pharmacy and Poisons Act definition does not apply. Its literal meaning, per the Collins dictionary, involves preparing medicine before giving or selling it. There was no evidence the defendant prepared medicine before selling it, so counts 1 and 2 were not proved to the required standard.
Whether the appropriate statute for the sale of veterinary medicines was the VSVPA
No; the law governing sale of drugs and medicines, whether for human or animal consumption, is the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, not the VSVPA.
The court observed the defendant may have been merely operating a shop selling veterinary medicine, conduct regulated by the Pharmacy and Poisons Act. The court noted it could have convicted under that Act under sections 179 and 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code had the offences been properly framed, but found the charges as laid under the VSVPA not proved and acquitted.
Legal principles established
#- A prima facie case is one where there is sufficient evidence upon which the court would convict the accused if no explanation is given.
- The word 'dispensing' in the VSVPA connotes more than mere selling of medicine.
- The burden of proving the DPP's consent under section 40 of the VSVPA lies with the prosecution and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
Court orders
#- 1.Both charges dismissed pursuant to section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no prima facie case having been disclosed
- 2.Defendant acquitted of Unlawfully Practicing Veterinary Medicine while not Registered by the KVB contrary to section 13(1) as read with section 15(7) of the VSVPA
- 3.Defendant acquitted of Unlawfully Practising Veterinary Medicine Without an Annual Practising Licence from the KVB contrary to section 13(1) as read with section 38(q) of the VSVPA
- 4.The Kshs. 10,000/= bail deposited on her behalf to be released to the depositor
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Criminal jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code (sections 210, 211), trying charges under the Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Paraprofessionals Act, 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Wachira (Criminal Case 2288 of 2015) [2017] KEMC 129 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment (criminal charge filed 02.09.2015, Nyahururu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2017/129/eng@2017-01-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.