Republic v Mbinda (Criminal Case 385 of 2020) [2025] KEMC 236 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court acquitted a man accused of stealing a car, ruling a payment dispute is a civil matter, not theft.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Prosecution has established a prima facie case to warrant the accused person to be placed on his defence
Key legal issues
#Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case of stealing to warrant the accused being placed on his defence
No prima facie case was established; the accused was acquitted under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The complainant and accused did business together and there was a dispute over payment. The motor vehicle was driven to the accused's premises by PW2 and detained there; the complainant herself conceded in cross-examination that the accused did not steal but merely detained it. There was no proof of intent to permanently deprive and no evidence the accused moved the vehicle as required by section 268(5) of the Penal Code. The evidence was a business deal gone sour, not theft.
Legal principles established
#- A mere scintilla of evidence, or worthless and discredited evidence, can never be enough to establish a prima facie case.
- To establish a prima facie case, the prosecution must establish that the offence was committed and that the evidence links the accused to the offence.
- Detention of property over a payment dispute in a civil business relationship does not amount to stealing.
Court orders
#- 1.That the accused person has No Case to answer
- 2.That the accused person is acquitted of the charge under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Criminal jurisdiction under the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code (stealing contrary to section 278A and handling stolen property contrary to section 322 of the Penal Code; acquittal under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Having considered the evidence on record, I find no proof of commission of the ofience of stealing. This appears to have been a case of a business deal gone sour. The prosecution has failed to establish the key ingredients of the ofience.
Detaining the motor vehicle over a payment dispute may not have been the right approach but it does not amount to stealing.
It is not the duty of the accused person to fill in the gaps or tie up the loose ends in the prosecution case.
I find and hold that the accused person has No Case to answer and proceed to acquit him of the charge under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues in the judgment
#The charge is described as 'Stealing contrary to section 278A of the Penal Code'; section 278A concerns stock and produce theft, though the court analysed stealing generally under section 268 - no express contradiction, but the section cited is unusual for a motor vehicle.
The Republic v Galbraith citation reads '[1981] WLR 1039' without the All England report volume, an incomplete citation.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Mbinda (Criminal Case 385 of 2020) [2025] KEMC 236 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/236/eng@2025-08-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.