Republic v Munyao & another (Criminal Case E1165 of 2021) [2026] KEMC 111 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Makindu court acquitted two men of dealing in a python skin because NGO rangers had no legal power to search them and the exhibit's handling was never documented.
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 accused persons were found dealing in a wildlife trophy on 7/12/2021
- 2.Whether the trophy was a python skin
- 3.If in the affirmative, whether the accused persons had a permit
- 4.Whether the prosecution has proven its case against the accused persons to the required standard
Key legal issues
#Lawfulness of search and seizure by Big Life Foundation rangers
The rangers were not authorized officers under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and had no power to stop, search, seize and detain; the purported search and seizure was unlawful.
Section 110 of the Act vests enforcement powers only in authorized officers, defined in section 3 as members of the Kenya Wildlife Service, police, forest, fisheries, customs or administrative officers or persons designated under the Act. Big Life Foundation, an NGO, and its rangers are not designated. Section 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code shows a private person making an arrest must hand over the suspect to police to conduct any search, and section 26 restricts stop-and-search powers. The court held the search and seizure, if it happened, was unlawful and cannot stand in an open and democratic society.
Chain of custody of the python skin
The chain of custody was broken and unproven, casting reasonable doubt on whether the skin produced in evidence was the one allegedly recovered from the accused persons.
PW1 could not name the police officer at the report office to whom he handed the skin; the skin was unmarked until 22/3/2022; Police Constable Matara, through whom PW4 received it, was never called; it is unknown who had custody from 7/12/2021 to 22/3/2022; PW5 obtained the skin from the exhibit store without records and could not say how the OCS came to hold it. Following Annie Butoyi Ciza v Republic and Benard Omondi Odullo v Republic, an incomplete chain of evidence casts doubt on whether the exhibit is the one recovered from the accused.
Standard of proof and the burden on the prosecution
The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.
Citing Philip Nzaka Watu v Republic, Stephen Nguli Mulili v Republic, Miller v Ministry of Pensions and Bakare v State, the court reaffirmed that the burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt requires a high degree of probability admitting no plausible possibilities. The prosecution evidence was described as highly discredited, and the court held it had no reason to disregard the defence testimony; as a matter of law the doubt fell to the accused persons.
Correct charging provision where the trophy is of an endangered species
The African rock python is listed in the Sixth Schedule as an endangered species, so the proper charge lay under section 92(2) or alternatively section 92(4), not section 95(b); the error was not fatal.
The court found on the evidence of PW3, the Research Scientist from the National Museums of Kenya, that the skin was that of an African rock python, an endangered species under the Sixth Schedule. Accordingly, the accused ought to have been charged under section 92(2) (dealing in a trophy of an endangered species) or section 92(4) (possession of such a trophy), not section 95(b). The court nonetheless held the misdescription of the charge was not fatal to the prosecution case, though it was of no consequence given the acquittal.
Legal principles established
#- Only authorized officers as defined in the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act may stop, search, seize items and arrest suspects under the Act; private rangers of a non-governmental organization are not authorized officers and their search and seizure is unlawful.
- Where a suspect is arrested by a private person, the private person has no authority to conduct a search; the suspect must be handed over to the police who will conduct the search.
- The chain of custody of a key exhibit must be fully proven; a broken chain raises reasonable doubt that the exhibit produced is the one recovered from the accused.
- A charge under the wrong provision of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act (species not listed in the Sixth Schedule) is not fatal where the facts disclose the correct charge.
Court orders
#- 1.Both accused persons found not guilty of dealing in a wildlife trophy without a permit contrary to section 95(b) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and acquitted accordingly
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Criminal jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code over a charge of dealing in a wildlife trophy contrary to section 95(b) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act
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 my finding that the purported search and seizure by PW 1 and PW 2, if at all it happened, was unlawful and cannot be allowed to stand in any open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.
Big Life Foundation and its oficers are not designated to carry out such activities. They are thus not authorized oficers under the Act.
Members of the public are expected to be vigilant in the fight against crime but they should not usurp the powers exclusively conferred on selected institutions such as the police and KWS oficers.
No record of the chain of custody of the skin was produced in evidence. The chain of custody is unclear and was broken.
Reasonable doubt has been cast on the prosecution case and as a matter of law, the doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused persons.
I find both accused persons not guilty of the ofience of Dealing in a wildlife trophy without a permit contrary to section 95(b) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and proceed to Acquit them of the ofience accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment bears two inconsistent dates: the charge refers to plea and events of 2021, the hearing on 14/5/2025, yet the disposition is dated 7 May 2026; also the judgment text states PW2's testimony 'was similar to that of PW 2' (self-referential error).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Republic v Juma (Criminal Case E182 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 391 (KLR)[2026] KEMC 391 (KLR)29 Jul 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Munyao & another (Criminal Case E1165 of 2021) [2026] KEMC 111 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/111/eng@2026-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.