Republic v Amokola (Anti-Corruption Case 6 of 2018) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) [2019] KEMC 4 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court convicted a county officer of bribery over just Kshs.3,000, ruling that corruption is a crime regardless of the amount involved.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Request for financial advantage (Counts I-III, Bribery Act section 6(1)(a))
Proved; the request of 13th June was not controverted and the demand for the full Kshs.3,000/- was renewed on 16th June
PW1 testified he was told the motorcycle would only be released upon payment of Kshs.3,000/-. When offered Kshs.2,000/- on 16th June, the accused insisted on Kshs.3,000/- saying it was to be shared by three. The accused's defence addressed only the events of 16th June and left the 13th June request uncontroverted.
Receiving the bribe money (Counts I-III)
Proved; PW4, PW6 and PW10 saw PW1 hand the treated Kshs.3,000/- to the accused, who counted and pocketed it
Three EACC officers trailing PW1 witnessed the handover after the pre-arranged signal; PW10 saw the money received in the right hand and placed in the right back trouser pocket. Reception completed the offence; escape with the money did not negate it.
Obstruction of EACC officers (Count IV, ACECA section 66(1)(a))
Proved; after being handcuffed, the accused fought the officers and incited colleagues who rescued him
The officers identified themselves; the accused fought them, yelled 'waizi waizi' attracting county askaris and the public, was rescued and escaped with the money and handcuffs. This evidence was not controverted, and PW3/PW9 recorded first-hand reports placing the accused at the scene.
Concealing evidence (Count V, ACECA section 66(1))
Proved; the accused escaped with the Kshs.3,000/-, the very treated notes intended as evidence against him
The court found that the accused simultaneously went away with the Kshs.3,000/-, which were pieces of evidence intended to be used against him, and the money was never recovered.
Accused's defence of mistaken identification and medical condition
Rejected; the court disbelieved his claim that he did not know his attackers
The accused admitted an encounter with people he did not know, but the evidence showed the officers introduced themselves. His sick-sheet and KNH documents did not displace the eyewitness and circumstantial evidence placing him at the scene receiving the money.
Legal principles established
#- The offence of receiving a bribe is complete as soon as the accused is seen receiving the financial advantage
- An accused who, knowing his guilt, puts the court through a full trial should expect the consequences, regardless of the amount involved
Court orders
#- 1.Conviction of the accused on all five counts under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code
- 2.Sentence to a fine of Kshs.150,000/= on each count, in default one year imprisonment on each count
- 3.Count II and III sentences to run concurrently; the other counts to run consecutively
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original criminal jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) over charges under the Bribery Act No. 47 of 2016 and the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act No. 3 of 2003
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Amokola (Anti-Corruption Case 6 of 2018) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) [2019] KEMC 4 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2019/4/eng@2019-04-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.