Republic v Shee (Criminal Case E016 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 272 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Lamu court convicted a man of possessing bhang because he signed an inventory admitting possession and never challenged the police evidence or analyst report.
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 substance suspected to be bhang
Yes - the court found actual possession proved beyond doubt.
The prosecution witnesses testified that they intercepted the accused, searched him and recovered one sachet of a greenish substance. The accused denied possession but did not displace this evidence, admitting that he generally uses bhang though not that day. An inventory signed by him acknowledging possession was produced without objection, supporting a finding of actual possession.
Whether the substance found is a narcotic drug within the meaning of the Act
Yes - the government analyst report confirmed the substance was cannabis, a narcotic drug under the Act.
A government analyst report dated 5/2/2026 was produced as an exhibit showing the substance in the sachet was cannabis. The accused did not challenge the report at all. The court was satisfied the substance was cannabis, a narcotic drug under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act.
Legal principles established
#- Possession of narcotics may be proved by the evidence of the arresting officers together with an inventory signed by the accused acknowledging possession, where the accused offers no substantive challenge.
- A government analyst report produced in evidence and unchallenged by the accused suffices to establish that a suspected substance is a narcotic drug within the meaning of the Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The accused person is convicted 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, the conviction being entered 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
- Criminal jurisdiction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act No. 4 of 1994 and the Criminal Procedure Code (trial of narcotics offence, first instance)
Relief refused
#Defence of denial of possession
The accused merely denied possession and did not displace the prosecution evidence; he also admitted using bhang generally, and an inventory he signed acknowledging possession was produced without objection.
Costs
No costs order made (criminal matter; sentence not yet passed in this judgment).
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.
The accused person is thus guilty as charged to wit 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.
Considering the evidence and the exhibits produced, I am convinced beyond doubt that the prosecution proved the sole count the accused person faces in this case.
I am thus convinced beyond doubt that the accused was in actual possession of the 1 sachet of bhang.
I am thus satisfied that the substance in the one sachet was and indeed is cannabis.
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical errors in the judgment text
The judgment does not state the case number
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Shee (Criminal Case E016 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 272 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/272/eng@2026-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.