Republic v Parimeris & another (Criminal Case E871 of 2023) [2025] KEMC 290 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court acquitted a man accused of possessing elephant tusks because being present in the room was not proof he knew about them.
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 1st accused person was found in possession of the elephant tusks
- 2.Whether the trophy was of an endangered species and in particular elephant tusks
- 3.If (i) and (ii) above are in the affirmative, whether the 1st accused person had a permit
- 4.Whether the prosecution has proven its case against the 1st accused person to the required standard
Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st accused was in possession of the elephant tusks
The prosecution failed to prove possession by the 1st accused; the room was booked and the bag carried by the 2nd accused, and no evidence established the 1st accused's knowledge of the tusks
The prosecution evidence showed the 2nd accused rented room 33 and arrived with the bag containing the tusks. The 1st accused arrived later to meet her and consistently maintained he was unaware of the bag's contents. There was no evidence of communication between them establishing a common intention. The defence was corroborated by prosecution evidence and could not be dismissed as an afterthought.
Standard of proof applicable to the charge
The prosecution had to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused
Relying on Philip Nzaka Watu, Stephen Nguli Mulili, Miller v Ministry of Pensions and Bakare v State, the court reaffirmed the golden thread principle that the burden lies on the prosecution and that proof beyond reasonable doubt requires a high degree of probability but excludes fanciful possibilities.
Whether suspicion can found a conviction
Suspicion, however strong, cannot be a basis for inferring guilt
The court adopted the Court of Appeal's holding in Joan Chebichii Sawe v Republic that suspicion however strong cannot provide a basis for inferring guilt which must be proved by evidence. The case against the 1st accused amounted to mere suspicion.
Whether the tusks constituted a trophy of an endangered species
The elephant is listed as an endangered species in the Sixth Schedule of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and the items were confirmed to be elephant tusks
PW1, a Research Scientist at the National Museums of Kenya, analysed the seven exhibits and established they were elephant tusks; PW3 weighed them at 6.4 kgs. Under the Sixth Schedule the African elephant is an endangered species, so the trophy element was proven.
Legal principles established
#- Mere presence in a room where contraband is recovered is insufficient; the prosecution must adduce evidence linking the accused to the trophy
- Under section 4 of the Penal Code, joint possession requires knowledge and consent; possession is deemed to be in the custody and possession of each of two or more persons only where one has it with the knowledge and consent of the rest
Court orders
#- 1.The prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the 1st accused person was found not guilty of possession of an endangered wildlife trophy without a permit contrary to section 92(4) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and was acquitted accordingly
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Criminal trial under section 92(4) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act
Relief refused
#Conviction of the 1st accused person
No evidence that the 1st accused was privy to the contents of the bag; mere suspicion cannot sustain a conviction
Costs
No costs order made (criminal case)
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.
It is not enough to merely show that the 1st accused person was found in the room where the elephant tusks were recovered from.
There is room for reasonable doubt and as a matter of law, the doubt must be resolved in favour of the 1st accused person.
I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, I find and hold that the 1st accused person is not guilty of the ofience of Possession of endangered wildlife trophy without a permit or other lawful exemption contrary to section 92(4) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act.
As the glove does not fit, I proceed to acquit him accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal cross-reference error - section 3 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act is said to define endangered species by reference to the Fourth Schedule, which the court itself corrects to the Sixth Schedule
The judgment's case number and citation are not stated on the face of the extract
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Parimeris & another (Criminal Case E871 of 2023) [2025] KEMC 290 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/290/eng@2025-11-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.