Republic v Masinde (Anti-Corruption Case E036 of 2024) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) [2025] KEMC 201 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court convicted a water company employee for faking an IT diploma to earn over Kshs 7 million in salary, but acquitted him on the forgery count itself.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the impugned Diploma Certificate was a false document (Count II, element 1)
Proved beyond reasonable doubt; the Certificate purported to have been issued by Eldoret National Polytechnic was conclusively shown by the institution's records to be fake
PW2, the Academic Registrar, confirmed the Accused was admitted but completed only Module 1 and never graduated; the Certificate bore an admission number not in the system, and the Accused's name was absent from the 2010 graduation booklet. The court found the prosecution evidence overwhelming and unchallenged on this element.
Whether the Accused forged the impugned Certificate (Count II, element 2)
Not proved; no evidence established any nexus between the Accused and the making of the forged document within any limb of a principal offender under section 20 of the Penal Code
None of the six witnesses produced direct or circumstantial evidence that the Accused made, aided, abetted, procured or counselled the making of the false document. The court declined to descend into speculation, applying the Manuthu principle that a court cannot create its own evidence.
Whether the Accused uttered the false document knowingly (Count III)
Proved beyond reasonable doubt on circumstantial evidence; the declaration in the PIF read 'Diploma – Pass – 2007-2010 - Eldoret Polytechnic' and matched the forged Certificate
The court construed the PIF declaration under the plain meaning rule to mean the Accused claimed a completed Diploma. The consistency between the PIF data and the forged Certificate, plus the job requirement, invoked section 119 of the Evidence Act and the circumstantial evidence tests, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Whether the Accused fraudulently or unlawfully acquired public property (Count I)
Proved; acquisition of Kshs. 7,173,963.60 in salaries was established by payroll evidence and found both fraudulent and unlawful
Acquisition of public property was admitted. Applying the but-for test, the court inferred fraud from the Accused's knowledge of the job requirement and his false declaration; lawfulness was not discharged because the evidential burden shifted to the Accused under section 111 of the Evidence Act once the prosecution proved the acquisition.
Whether the Accused deceived his principal (Count IV)
Proved; the statement to NCWSC was knowingly false and to the detriment of NCWSC
All three elements were derived from the earlier findings: the Accused (an agent under section 38 of ACECA) made the statement in the PIF, knew it to be false, and the detriment was the fraudulent and unlawful acquisition of salaries amounting to Kshs. 7,173,963.60.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proving the ingredients of an offence is entirely on the prosecution and the Accused cannot be called upon to prove his innocence, except for facts under section 111 of the Evidence Act
- Falsity in forgery relates to the purport of the document, not its contents; the document must tell a lie about itself
- Circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction only where the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the Accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than his guilt
- An Accused person cannot be held to have acted fraudulently unless it is proved he had prior notice of the qualifications for the position but proceeded to deceive the employer about his true qualifications
- Once the prosecution proves acquisition of public property, the evidential burden of proving the acquisition was lawful shifts to the Accused under section 111 of the Evidence Act
Court orders
#- 1.Acquittal of the Accused on Count II (forgery contrary to section 345 as read with section 349 of the Penal Code) under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code
- 2.Conviction of the Accused on Count I (fraudulent acquisition of public property contrary to section 45(1)(a) as read with section 48 of ACECA) under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code
- 3.Conviction of the Accused on Count III (uttering a false document contrary to section 353 of the Penal Code) under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code
- 4.Conviction of the Accused on Count IV (deceiving a principal contrary to section 41(2) as read with section 48 of ACECA) under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code
- 5.Abrogation of the bond and bail to which the Accused was hitherto admitted
- 6.Direction that the Accused be held in police custody until the date appointed for delivery of the sentence
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original criminal jurisdiction over anti-corruption and economic crimes under ACECA and the Criminal Procedure Code
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Masinde (Anti-Corruption Case E036 of 2024) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) [2025] KEMC 201 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Milimani MCAC Number E036 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/201/eng@2025-08-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.