Republic v Rono & 2 others (Criminal Case E2050 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 350 (KLR)

The court found no express agreement among the accused; the 2nd and 3rd accused were not signatories to the Trust Account; the 1st Accused's actions aligned with his lawful county appointment; and the investigating officer's 1.1 billion figure contradicted the bank official's evidence that the account never held more than Kshs 35 million. Without a forensic audit, the inflated figure dented the credibility of the investigations and the charge appeared intended to embarrass and intimidate.

The essential ingredients of fraudulent and dishonest taking and intent to permanently deprive were not established. Witnesses confirmed withdrawn funds went to fees, allowances, furniture and visa fees for the programme. The investigating officer could not explain the figures in the charge sheet, ignored the task force findings of only Kshs 8 million unaccounted for, and the 2nd Accused was not even a signatory to the Trust Account, demonstrating shoddy and careless investigations.

The prosecution's reliance on Republic v Nyanamba, an authority on section 46 of ACECA, was misplaced given that section 101(1) creates a distinct offence requiring proof of an arbitrary act and prejudice. No prejudice was shown to the county or victims; the advertisement was clear the programme was not a scholarship; and the evidence established that secondment of staff was done by the Chief Officer/County Secretary, not the 3rd Accused.

No one saw the 1st Accused make the documents, and the cognate offence of uttering was not charged. The 2nd Accused's handwriting was never examined. The forensic document examiner's report was based on photocopies rather than primary evidence as required by sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act, and the credibility of the witnesses denying their signatures was doubtful given evidence of their awareness of, and benefit from, the Trust.