Republic v Orinda & another (Criminal Case E004 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 157 (KLR)

Nakuru Law Courts (Magistrates' Court)

15 July 2025

ANAloice Peter Ndege

468 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

Two men who hacked 136 M-Kopa accounts and defrauded customers were fined over Kshs. 1.6 million each, with jail if they fail to pay.

What this practically means

Executive summary

This is a sentencing decision of the Nakuru Law Courts (Senior Principal Magistrate Aloice Peter Ndege) in Criminal Case E004 of 2025. Ian Odhiambo Orinda and Aggrey Ayiecha Okoyo were convicted upon their own pleas of guilt of unauthorized access to a computer system contrary to section 14(1) as read with section 15(1) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act No. 5 of 2018, and three counts of cheating. The evidence underlying the pleas was that, on diverse dates between 6th March 2025 and 21st May 2025 at Mogoon Village, Kaptembwa area, Nakuru West sub-County, the accused unlawfully accessed 136 M-kopa accounts with intent to commit felony, and, pretending to be employees of M-kopa (K) Ltd, obtained sums of Kshs. 16,555, Kshs. 11,900 and Kshs. 7,400 from three complainants' M-pesa accounts by fraudulent tricks. The court noted that the accused were first-time offenders with no previous records furnished by the prosecution and that they had pleaded for forgiveness. Exercising its sentencing discretion, the court fined each accused Kshs. 1,500,000 on count 1 (in default 18 months' imprisonment), Kshs. 48,000 on count 2 (in default 6 months), Kshs. 33,000 on count 3 (in default 6 months) and Kshs. 21,000 on count 4 (in default 5 months), with all sentences to run consecutively. A 14-day right of appeal was explained. No costs order was made; the court directed supply of certified proceedings and ruling to defence counsel upon payment of the prescribed fee.

Key legal issues

Sentencing upon conviction on own plea of guilty for computer misuse and cheating offences

Holding

Each accused was sentenced to fines with default imprisonment terms on each of the four counts, to run consecutively

Reasoning

The court noted the accused were first-time offenders with no previous records furnished by the prosecution, and that they had pleaded for forgiveness. Taking the charges and the relevant penal provisions into account, the magistrate imposed fines in default of imprisonment on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively, and explained the 14-day right of appeal.

p. 1

Legal principles established

Where multiple counts attract sentences, the court may order them to run consecutively and must explain the right of appeal

Court orders

1.Count 1: each accused to pay a fine of Kshs. 1,500,000/- in default to serve 18 months imprisonment
2.Count 2: each accused fined Kshs. 48,000/= in default to serve 6 months imprisonment
3.Count 3: each accused fined Kshs. 33,000/- in default to serve 6 months imprisonment
4.Count 4: each accused fined Kshs. 21,000/- in default to serve 5 months imprisonment
5.Sentences to run consecutively
6.14 days right of appeal explained
7.Certified copy of the proceedings and the ruling to be supplied to defence counsel upon payment of the necessary fee

Authorities

Legislation

Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act No. 5 of 2018section 14(1) as read with section 15(1)

Jurisdiction invoked: Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act No. 5 of 2018, sections 14(1) as read with 15(1); penal jurisdiction of the magistrates' court in criminal trials

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Orinda & another (Criminal Case E004 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 157 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Criminal Case E004 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/157/eng@2025-07-15

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.