Republic v Ali (Criminal Case E195 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 119 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Lamu court convicted a man of possessing bhang because he never properly challenged the police evidence or the signed inventory he admitted owning.
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 person was in possession of the substance suspected to be bhang
- 2.That the substances found in possession of the accused are narcotic drug within the meaning of the Act
Key legal issues
#Whether the accused was in possession of the suspected bhang
The court found actual possession proved beyond doubt, the accused having failed to displace the prosecution evidence and having signed an inventory acknowledging possession
The court noted there was no proper challenge to the prosecution evidence on possession. Cross-examination concentrated on the lapse of 24 hours before arraignment, the place of arrest and absence of photographs, not on possession. The accused admitted arrest but denied the bhang. An inventory signed by the accused acknowledging possession was produced without objection, satisfying the court beyond doubt that the accused was in actual possession of the sachet of bhang.
Whether the substance was a narcotic drug within the meaning of the Act
The government analyst report confirmed the substance was cannabis, a narcotic drug under the Act, and the accused did not challenge the report
The government analyst report dated 6/11/2025 was produced as an exhibit and confirmed the substance was cannabis, a narcotic drug under the Act. The accused did not challenge the report at all, whether in cross-examination or in his sworn defence. The court was therefore satisfied that the substance in the one sachet was cannabis, establishing the second element of the offence under section 3(1) as read with 3(2)(a).
Legal principles established
#- Possession of narcotics may be proved by unchallenged prosecution evidence together with an inventory signed by the accused acknowledging possession
- An unchallenged government analyst report suffices to establish that a suspected substance is a narcotic drug
Court orders
#- 1.Conviction of the accused for being in possession of narcotic drugs contrary to section 3(1) as read with section 3(2)(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act No. 4 of 1994, under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance criminal trial under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act and 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.
I am thus convinced beyond doubt that the accused was in actual possession of the 1 sachet of bhang.
The accused person is thus guilty as charged of being in possession of narcotic drugs contrary to section 3(1) as read with section 3(2)(a) of the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Control Act No. 4 of 1994 and he is accordingly convicted in that counts under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Orders accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#No case number or neutral citation appears on the judgment
Drafting/typographical errors in the judgment text, including inconsistent capitalisation of the statute and a garbled denial by the accused
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Ali (Criminal Case E195 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 119 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/119/eng@2026-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.