Republic v Chege (Criminal Case E166 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 168 (KLR)

Nakuru Law Courts (Magistrates' Court)

28 July 2025

PNPA Ndege

402 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

A Nakuru court released a woman who pleaded guilty to obtaining Kshs. 200,000 by false pretences, ruling her six months in remand was punishment enough.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The accused, Leah Wanjiru Chege, was convicted on her own plea of guilty of obtaining Kshs. 200,000 by false pretences contrary to section 313 of the Penal Code. The charge was that on 28th February 2024 at Freehold Estate, Nakuru East sub-County, she obtained the money from Susan Githaiga Nduta by falsely pretending she could secure her employment at the Ministry of Immigration in Nairobi. In mitigation she was a first-time offender with no previous records furnished by the prosecution, she prayed for forgiveness, and she had been in remand custody since January 2025. The court noted the maximum penalty was three years' imprisonment. In deciding sentence, the magistrate took into account the guilty plea and remorse, which saved the court's trial time; the first-offender status; the period in remand; and, notably, the court's finding that the offence was committed in conspiracy with the complainant, who was seeking an improper employment placement and could be regarded as an accomplice to a possible bribery or related anti-corruption offence. Holding that the over six months already served in remand was sufficient punishment for this kind of offence, the court discharged the accused under section 35(1) of the Penal Code and ordered her release from remand custody forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. The judgment was delivered in open court at Nakuru on 28th July 2025 by Senior Principal Magistrate PA Ndege, with the accused present and the victim absent.

Key legal issues

Appropriate sentence for obtaining money by false pretences contrary to section 313 of the Penal Code

Holding

The court discharged the first-time offender under section 35(1) of the Penal Code, treating the over six months spent in remand as sufficient punishment.

Reasoning

The maximum sentence was three years' imprisonment. Mitigating factors were the accused's guilty plea and remorse, which saved the court's trial time; her status as a first-time offender; her time in remand since January 2025; and the finding that the offence was committed in conspiracy with the complainant, who sought an improper employment placement and may herself be viewed as an accomplice to a bribery or anti-corruption offence.

p. 2

Legal principles established

A guilty plea that saves the court's time, first-offender status and the period spent in remand are mitigating factors justifying a discharge where the offence was committed in complicity with the complainant.

Court orders

1.The accused is discharged under section 35(1) of the Penal Code, the over 6 months spent in remand being sufficient punishment
2.The accused to be released from remand custody forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held

Authorities

Legislation

Penal Codesection 313
Penal Codesection 35(1)

Jurisdiction invoked: Section 313 of the Penal Code; section 35(1) of the Penal Code

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Chege (Criminal Case E166 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 168 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Criminal Case E166 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/168/eng@2025-07-28

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