Republic v Mburu (Anti-Corruption Case 25 of 2017) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) [2018] KEMC 94 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan traffic policeman was convicted of bribery after cash found on him was presumed corrupt because he couldn't explain where it came from.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Dealing with suspect property under section 47(2)(a) ACECA
Recovery of Kshs 5,250 in denominations of 50, 100 and 200 soon after arrest fell within 'dealing' with suspect property
EACC surveillance over several weeks captured the accused boarding matatus without inspecting them, receiving something from a person in uniform, and being arrested with cash in the complained-of denominations. The court found the prosecution established reasonable suspicion that the money resulted from corrupt conduct, satisfying section 47(2)(a).
Abuse of office under section 46 ACECA
Accused improperly conferred on himself a benefit of Kshs 5,250 by virtue of his office
The accused worked alone contrary to deployment practice, entered matatus without performing any traffic duty, was seen receiving something and exchanging it between hands, and was arrested with cash matching the reported bribes. The court found he used his office to improperly benefit himself.
Rebuttal of presumption and evidential burden
Accused failed to rebut the presumption that the money was from corrupt conduct
Once the prosecution established reasonable suspicion, the evidential burden shifted to the accused under section 111 of the Evidence Act. His chicken-sales account, raised late and contradicted by evidence that he never left the scene, did not discharge that burden.
Legal principles established
#- Reasonable suspicion grounded in evidence raises a rebuttable presumption that money found with a public officer was obtained through corrupt conduct, shifting the evidential burden to the accused under section 111 of the Evidence Act
- A defence raised for the first time after close of the prosecution case may be dismissed as an afterthought
Court orders
#- 1.Accused convicted under section 215 of the CPC for dealing with suspect property contrary to section 47(2)(a) as read with section 48(1) of ACECA
- 2.Accused convicted under section 215 of the CPC for abuse of office contrary to section 46 as read with section 48(1) of ACECA
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act No. 3 of 2003, sections 46, 47(2)(a) and 48(1); Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Mburu (Anti-Corruption Case 25 of 2017) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) [2018] KEMC 94 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment (Traffic Case related: TC No 4628 of 2017, Makadara). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2018/94/eng@2018-08-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.