Republic v Oketch & another (Criminal Case E557 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 404 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court convicted two men of stealing Kshs. 223,250 through a fake Safaricom customer care phone scam, showing M-Pesa fraud can lead to conviction.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether there was property capable of being stolen
Proved - Kshs. 223,250 was withdrawn from the complainant's Mpesa float
PW1 testified that after following the caller's instructions he found Kshs. 223,250 withdrawn, and PW4 the Investigating Officer produced an Mpesa statement corroborating the withdrawal of that sum from Kenya Net Links Comms Shop on 4th April 2026.
Whether the money belonged to the complainant
Proved - the money was the property of Leonard Obiso
PW1 testified the money was withdrawn from his Mpesa outlet with a remaining balance of Kshs. 30,975, supported by the Mpesa statement. No evidence challenged his ownership or possession of the money.
Whether the accused fraudulently stole the complainant's money
Proved - the circumstances irresistibly point to the accused's involvement
The accused presented a phone displaying a number saved as Safaricom Customer Care though actually an Airtel number; the caller induced the complainant to enter a code on his Mpesa line, after which Kshs. 223,250 disappeared. The court found this chain of circumstances incompatible with innocence, applying Sawe v Republic on circumstantial evidence.
Whether the accused acted fraudulently and without claim of right
Proved - the withdrawal was fraudulent
The complainant only entered the instructions because he believed the caller was a Safaricom representative, and the accused had no authority or claim of right over the money; the deception therefore rendered the withdrawal fraudulent.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proof in a criminal trial lies with the prosecution throughout and never shifts to the accused
- Circumstantial evidence can justify an inference of guilt only where the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused
Court orders
#- 1.The accused person's defence dismissed
- 2.The accused person found guilty and convicted under section 215 of the CPC of stealing contrary to Section 268(1) as read with Section 275 of the Penal Code
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court under the Penal Code (Sections 268(1) and 275) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Section 215)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Oketch & another (Criminal Case E557 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 404 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). MCCR/E557/2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/404/eng@2026-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.