S1B061K
P.W. 1 ON OATH:
I am called <name/>. I work with Price Water House as a director in the auditing company. I am one of the owners of the company. Our office is at Loton Building Koinenga street. We deal with Danida as Financial Consultants who are financial <-_aiders> to the Government. Their office is at H.F.C.K. Building. They have a project in Kitui called the Kitui Integrated Development Programme. They (Danida) send money to the Kenya office who pass the finance to the Kitui office and in co-ordination of the Kenya Government development is done, with the money the project involves Water Sector conservation agriculture and <-_afforestation>. They work in collaboration with live stock development, Agriculture, Arid and <foreign/>Semi-arid lands and Water Development. As a financial consultants we do not deal with exactly how they plan their activities but I know they have field officers I work in collaboration of Government officers. In May 1992 the field officer (Kitui) became aware of financial irregularities and sought for police to investigate the irregularities ie on the field officers his appropriating the filed money. There were two stages of investigations. They were saying about One million shillings could have been misappropriated or even more. Our task was to confirm whether one million they suspected was misappropriated or much more. I concluded the investigations and end of July and June I discovered one million and over had been misappropriated. This is audit report. Report MFI one. I confirmed that 1.043 million had been misappropriated from July 1991.
All the above totals are 558,527/= they all relate to the activities carried out in respect of the Ministry of Agriculture. Next is a list of items carried out in respect of the Ministry of Livestock Development. Three specific items were a voucher of October 1991 relating to purchases of medicines and medical <-_valities> from Dawa pharmaceutical 20,567/= the voucher describes what was purchased as subject leaders. We are aware that Dawa pharmaceutical does not sell surgical needles. On that basis we concluded that this was a fraudulent transaction. It was an invoice used to support a train by the land. The 2nd voucher is of 046 of October 1991 of 50,000/=. This is the voucher which is meant to account to the Government the money taken by the account number. It was for purchase of vaccines from Kyoso Division. In order to show he has spent all money he was to submit documentation ie vouchers to support expenditure. In this case we found the expenditure was supported by a Government official receipt number 778788 dated 22.8.91. The arguments was that a government receipt is not a valid receipt to support the expenditure. No one would expect the invoice to be from the supplier. So on that basis we did not accept the receipt as legal supporting document for the expenditure and no explanation given we concluded the money was fraudulently spent. Voucher 046 - MFI 2 receipt number 778788 MFI 3. I see this photocopy of a receipt shows the amount to be 10/= only. It is dated 26.9.91 photocopy MFI 4 certified as a true copy of the original.
Investigation concluded at the end of July and we submitted our report to Davida at the same time with advice that action be taken through lawyers and if necessary involve the police. MFI 1 referred to the name on the voucher is <name/> Designation Veterinary officer. The money was for purchase of vaccines for Kyose Division and refers the official receipt to be No. 778788 which is the same number as MFI 3.
I copied the report involving 5 ministries named earlier. I have signed it and I wish to produce the same as exhibit in court. Exhibit 1. The information in the report was out of interviews of project management observed documentation in the management office in that David office and in cases needed explanation. We spoke to project officer concerned. I examined all documents relating to the report. They are with the <?/>intul management.
P.W. 1 cross-examined by counsel:
I have officers who work with me. I delegate the interviews of the accused to my officer and so did the interview to the Dawa Pharmaceuticals. I copied the report out that we did as a team. I have never seen the accused but my officers have. They were 3 members of the team but I cannot remember which of one of them did. I personally did not deal with the documents. I have seen them before. They were presented to me for review. Yes I copied MFI 4 and MFI 3. The prosecutor asked me the number and I read and so did he as in the date. I did the information on the two documents is not the same. Yes my officers visited Kyoso. I never dealt with Davida for 4 years. I was dealing with this project for the first time. The report was made to me by Davida officer at Nairobi. I interviewed the project co-ordinator supervisor and the administration supervisor. We do not investigate people we investigate documents. We were looking at the activities in Davida <-_inful>. It is in the objectives of the investigations as earlier stated (reads out). We worked at the whole project. Yes we doubted the expenditure of Kshs. 50,000/= because a government receipts would not have been issued to account for an expenditure. The money was never spent therefore. Whatever is indicated in the receipt could not have been brought. I was never given an explanation of reimbursement. If that happened there would be documentation from the supplier and then debits of sending sales if does. This would have been done by the project management and then doctor<name/>. We asked for the same. They never had these documents. I have not dealt with this documents. It does not relate to MFI 3 or 4. This account is signed for by the programme officer. I was not to find out whether they had an internal auditor. I interviewed the people who signed the and learnt they acted on the receipts produced - MFI 3. Yes we are aware Dawa Pharmaceuticals does not sell syringes and needles. I was using all the knowledge I had which I did. As of the time of investigations in June 1992 I sent an officer to go and interview officers at Dawa Pharmaceuticals. I can supply the name of the officer I sent to Dawa Pharmaceuticals. Yes I know some items are brought at Dawa Pharmaceuticals. They are ie vaccines they were regular customers of Dawa Pharmaceuticals. Yes <name/> was interviewed. He is a chief accountant. Also <name/> a cashier. Validity of MFI 3 was brought by my officers but I do not know who wrote this receipt. So many officers were interviewed This is not what I wrote in this report. I did not rely on the Davida office to make my report. We found these documents in their office
P.W. 2 ON OATH:
I am called <name/>. I work at the D.C.'s office Kitui as a district officer. My work includes receiving revenue and paying customers. I am the only cashier. The Government Official receipt books are in safe. I keep them if not in use. They are issued to me by an accountant. I do sign for them when I get them. Before paying the claim we identify the payees and then we pay them. We do have authorising officers before we pay. When recording the money we receive the money and issue receipts for the books. I even cheques the procedure is the same. When an individual comes to pay in person we receive the money and issue the receipt to the payee. The official receipts shows the amount surrendered. MFI 3 is a receipt. I came across it when I was shown to me by the CID officers last year. He asked if I issued the receipt I told them I never issued the receipt. It is number 778788 dated 22.8.91 it is for Kshs. 50,000/=. It is purported to have originated from Kitui station. It is said to have been received from K.D.A.P. from one Dr. <name/> from Veterinary department. It is stopped paid. I never received the money. This is not my writing nor the signature mine.
MFI is referred to. This is the same serial number MFI 4 is dated 26.9.91. It is for 10/= only. It is said to originate from Kitui station. It is signed but not mine nor the writings. I do not know anything about it. On 25.2.91 I was never issued with a book bearing this number. Yes I remember recording a statement with the police. I did sign the statement. I did speak about it the official receipt book. I do not know where MFI 3 originated since we checked with the counterfoil in my office and found it had not been issued to me. We checked serials number 778757 to 778800 which have the receipt 778788. The receipt was not appearing there. I have worked in the office since May 1991 and have been the cashier all alone. I also go on leave. I know the accused before court. He was working with the veterinary department. He has never visited me but would come to my office for normal vouchers or payments.
P.W. 2 on oath cross-examined by counsel:
I was not issued with a receipt book with the above serial numbers. It is not that I found this receipt missing from the receipt book. Yes the district accountant have many books. I cannot tell where this one was issued. It was paid to Kitui A.D.P. to surrender present. We do not get <-_impresent> surrendered in Kitui and also our office. it is just a normal receipt. It could have been obtained by somebody mailing any payment anywhere. To pay an <-_impresent> it is not a must to have an <-_impresent> warrant. There is an <-_impresent> section dealing with that. Mine is only to receive cash. Yes I was shown this receipt MFI 4. It is not my writing on the receipt have two copies. Origin, duplicate and the triplicate. The triplicate is the book copy it does not have the full details. The signatures at the back is not mine. It is certified by the accountant. The duplicate must be with the date people. It can be availed.
Accused present
<name/> for the accused.
P.W. 3 ON OATH:
I am called <name/>. I work at Kitui with veterinary department as a store keeper. My duties include receiving the bought goods and also issue out. I issue by use of S11 and receiving S13. The S11 is a counter voucher. After that the person goes ahead  and uses the things as he has requested them. Sometimes in October 1991 there were things bought by Dr. <name/>. I did not receive them so I cannot recall them one by one. I only remember things were bought from Dawa Pharmaceuticals. They were not brought to me. By then we had a campaign for Kyuso Division so we might have taken them directly there. Later <-/sweties> in a Mutiso I cannot remember I saw IP Nguli claiming they were not bought and the receipt was made out by the person who was saying he bought the things. I recorded my statement with IP Nguli. I said I did not receive the things. I was shown a photocopy of a receipt. This is not the photocopy. It was a receipt from Dawa Pharmaceuticals. I checked with our records and our records show the things were bought for Kyuso. Dr. <name/> is the accused before court. He was our deputy D.V.O.
P.W. 3 cross-examined by counsel:
I am stationed at District Headquarters Kitui. Sometimes goods get Ngare received at Divisions. Kitui had 5 Divisions then. Dr. <name/> was in charge of Kyuso Division. They were not vaccines. They were things against a vaccine campaign. They were items to be used in the vaccination campaigns ie Phypodemic needles. Later I received returns from Dr. <name/>. In the return he had indicated he received the items. They were used in the campaign. The returns are this in my office. <?/>Derecort on the urgency there was nothing wrong with the things being received at Kyuso because we have a <-_storeman> there also. I did not include then in my ledger because I am not the one who received them in the first time.
Re-examination
Nil
P.W. 4 ON OATH:
I am called Joseph Nzoma Mwasi. I work with DC's office Kitui as a higher clerical officer. My work includes being in charge of data section on 13.10.93. I was in my office at the data office when an inspector came to look for an official receipt. The district officer allowed me to give out a copy of the same. I remained with the duplicate and the police officer went with the photocopy then I wrote a statement. This is the receipt No. AN778788 dated 26.9.91 for Kshs. 10/= MFI 4 referred to. This is also receipt No. AN778788 dated 22.8.91 it is for Kshs. 50,000. It also have a stamp as paid. The other copy MFI 4 is not stamped but MFI 3 is stamped. MFI 14 originates from the district veterinary officer at Kitui. The in charge then was not known to me. 
S1B062K
P.W. 1 A FEMALE ADULT, SWORN AND STATES:
My name is <name/>. I stay at Parklands with my husband and my family. On 27/8/90 at about 10.00 a.m. I was in my house with my son and servant. The gardener was working outside. The servant is the 3rd accused, he worked in the house as a house servant. I was taking my tea and my son was doing his homework. I heard the rear door opening. I went to check and I saw no one. Shortly thereafter a stranger hurriedly in and I could not close the door. He is not here. He told me to sit down and 2 others came and tied our hands and the two are not here. They asked for cupboard and money. I gave them the keys and they took cash and valuable jewellery. They threatened to kill me if I made noise. They were armed with iron rods. They left using the rear door. 3rd <-_accused's> hands and legs were tied besides me. But he (3rd accused) was working outside and had opened the rear door. They also took my table clock. All goods stolen were worthy a lot of money. I cannot remember. After they left I untied myself, my son and servant. I closed the door and called my husband. At about 1 p.m. he reported to the police who visited our house. They broke the store room. I cannot remember any of the robbers.
Cross-examined by <name/>:
I was with my son, servant and gardener. I heard the back door opening and I went to check. The servant had opened the back door. The servant was washing the family's clothes outside the house. I could not see him open it. But he always opens the back door and I assumed he must be the one who had opened it. After a few seconds I saw a stranger. The first stranger tied our hands. My son is <name/>. We were tied up by one person. He was holding an iron rod. Within seconds two more strangers came in but my servant was not among them. I cannot remember which of the 3 strangers asked for the key. The key was to open a cupboard; where we keep cash and <-_jewelleries>. It was a pair of earrings, two rings sold bangles etc were stolen. They told me they were coming back and I was not to make noise. They used Swahili language. Nothing was recovered. None of the 3 strangers who came into my house is in court.
Cross-examined by 2nd accused:
My son was studying in the sitting room. I do not know if he saw the strangers. The gardener was completely outside in the garden. They entered through the rear. There was no watchman at the rear but at the front gate.
Cross-examined by 3rd accused:
You were at the backside and not with the robbers.
Re-examination:
They threatened to hurt me and asked me where the money was kept. My servant was brought from outside and tied with us.
P.W. 2 A MALE ADULT SWORN AND STATES:
My name is <name/>. I am a student at Oshural High School. I stay at Parklands on 2nd avenue. On 27/8/90 at about 10.00 a.m. I was in the sitting room studying when I heard my mother screaming. I went to the kitchen and I saw two people. They told me to sit down. One of them is the 2nd accused pointed. He tied my hands and those of PW 1 and 3rd accused. One of them demanded for the key and PW 1 gave them the key. They demanded to be told the exact keys and cupboard where the money was. We did. One came back and took the earrings of PW 1. One removed a table clock from the upper cupboard. Cash, jewellery and the clock were stolen. The 3 robbers had iron bars. They threatened us not to move and they left. One leaving with a bag. 3rd accused was outside and one robber was told to go and get him. I untied myself. We telephoned father who came and we went to report to the police station. Later on I was summoned to the police station where I identified the 2nd accused from an I/D parade. I was in the office and I was called when the parade was ready. I touched him on the shoulder. He was on parade until others. 2nd accused was the one who tied my hands.
Cross-examined by <name/>:
I heard PW 1 screaming and I went to the kitchen where she was. In the kitchen I was approached by a robber as PW 1 was lying down. There is a watchman outside the house. <name/> was guarding the 2nd house. I do not know where this watchman was. Later on I learnt that he was in the servant's quarters. He was on duty. The key fell down from her waist as she tried to close the door. I did not see the cupboard being opened. We were left in the kitchen as they moved and took items from the cupboards. I did not see any cash they took. There may be another pair of earrings in the cupboard and they took others from her. I saw the iron bar, 2nd accused and another person had two iron bars, one each. But no iron bar is in court now. A tall one removed a globe from the house. The parade was conducted at Parklands police station. There was a tall guy and a medium shortest one on the line. I was not told to pick anybody but that to look for any of the robbers who came to our house. 2nd accused was one of the robbers and 3rd accused was our servant. 3rd accused was brought in by the robbers and tied up with us.
Cross-examined by 2nd accused:
We have 2 servants. We have a gardener. Outside the compound we have 3 and one inside. There are 2 gates, one open and the front first one open. I met 3 robbers in our house. But when I went to the kitchen there were two. 3rd accused was outside I know you. I have never been in police cells.
Cross-examined by 3rd accused:
You were brought inside and tied with us. They tied us and demanded for the keys. I do not remember if they talked with you. They told us to be down and not more as they left.
Prosecutor:
The photographs of a motor vehicle used were not brought to court. I ask for an adjournment.
<name/>:
All 3 accused are in custody.
Court:
Case referred to court No. 1 on 25/4/91 for re-allocation and RIC
P.W. 3 A MALE ADULT SWORN AND STATES:
My name is <name/>. I work for Primate Security as a guard. I guard currently at Sprigually but previously I guard Parklands. On 7/8/90, at 10.30 a.m. I was guarding <name/>'s home. At 10.30 a.m. thieves <-_brokes><+_broke> in. He called me and I went and he told me people had surrounded the house and one had a gun. I went round and saw a ladder they used to enter. I saw 999 a police motor vehicle on the road. It was GK N843. Ref: Photographs MFI 1. It is this one in the picture. After 2 hours officers came from Parklands police station. I only saw a m/v with a driver in police uniform but I did not see the people.
Cross-examined by <name/>:
She told me people had entered and stolen. And that she saw them. A police m/v was circling around on the road. It was just rotating there. I saw from the m/v people alight and I did not see who had alighted. I was at the gate, inside. And I could not see people at the rear.
Cross-examined by 2nd accused:
She called me and told me thugs had stolen from her and one had a gun and I had to be careful. She had one employee. I have worked for her for one year. There was one house servant and a gardener. There were five people with the driver, the 6th.
Cross-examined by 3rd accused:
Nil
P.W. 4 A MALE ADULT SWORN AND STATES:
My name is <name/>. I stay at Highridge. On 27/8/90 at about 10.30 a.m. I was coming from my Charcoal Kiosk at Ngara. I met a police motor vehicle GK N843 Ref. photographs - shows the picture of that m/v. I went to Westlands. When I returned the m/v at the house where there had been a robbery. I did not see the driver.
Cross-examined by <name/>:
I met the police m/v. The watchmen told me there had been a theft there.
Cross-examined by 2nd accused:
I do not know who guards that house but I only heard there had been a robbery.
Cross-examined by 3rd accused:
I was told by the watchmen at about 10.30 a.m. that there had been a robbery.
P.W. 5 A MALE ADULT SWORN AND STATES:
My name is <name/>. I stay at Jerusalem. On 10/7/89 I was on duty when a motor vehicle GK N843 Toyota Corrolla with this job card MFI 2 were brought to me to put a amplifier. I put the amplifier on its roof. I work as an electrician. I now produce this job card as an exhibit (2). I work at police Central workshop.
Cross-examined by <name/>:
It was brought by <name/> who is in charge of Central Police workshops.
Cross-examined by 2nd accused
Nil
Cross-examined by 3rd accused:
Nil
P.W. 6 A MALE ADULT SWORN AND STATES:
I am No. 45538 P.C. <name/> attached to Parklands CID. On 4/9/90, I was instructed to go to Kitui District with 3rd accused. We went to search his house and on arrival we searched his house and recovered this radio cassette, trouser, 1,100/= and shirt and they were on new. This is the radio cassette MFI 3, and these 3 trousers MFI 4 and shirt MFI 5. They were all new. And this 1,100/= MFI 6. We returned accused to police station. I now wish to produce them in court as exhibits (3 to 06).
Cross-examined by <name/>:
Nil
Cross-examined by 2nd accused
Nil
Cross-examined by 3rd accused:
These items must have been bought with the stolen money. You did not tell me that you had taken a loan and sold your leave for money.
P.W.7 A FEMALE SWORN AND STATES:
I am IP <name/> attached to CID Parklands. On 30/8/90 at 11 a.m. I was at the police station when I took a statement under inquiry from 3rd accused. I had taken over investigations from P.C. <name/>. We went to the scene on 29/7/90 along Mpaka road in the afternoon. After observing how the crime was committed I interrogated some suspects. One of them <name/> who was in custody - he is a witness. He told me that he had been approached before commission of offence by 2nd accused who requested him to allow 2nd accused and his party to use the compound where he was doing renovation in an <-_uncoppied> house which is next to that of PW 1. The <-_houseboy> of PW 1 had already agreed to allow 2nd accused and his party to go and commit the offence. On 30/8/90, I went and took the 3rd accused from the house of the complainant where he was working as a <-_houseboy>. I brought him to the police station and took this statement. In the morning I went to South B. Police station I was where I found GK N483, Toyota saloon having already been burnt on one side. Ref. Photographs show the m/v. Some witnesses had testified that it had been seen at the scene of the crime. I learnt that first accused a police officer attached to transport had been driving it. I went to his house and searched it; but nothing was recovered. I went to Transport Pool in industrial area where I got this <-_workticket> MFI 7 for the said m/v. I noted that on 27/8/90 between 7 a.m. and 12.35 p.m. P.C. <name/> was driving the m/v and this is in between the time the robbery took place. I took him to Parklands police station where he attended an I/D parade by IP <name/>. Some of the witnesses had described the officer who had the m/v. The ID parade was conducted and first accused was identified. I was in office on 30/8/90 at 2 p.m. when 3rd accused was brought to me. I cautioned him we used Swahili language and he gave me this statement voluntarily without any threats, inducement nor promises. I read it back to him but he had not alterations to make. He signed it and I countersigned it. 
S1B063K
1st P.W. <name/> P/M A/S
I am employed by Kenya Green Growers Union as a subordinate staff and attached to Mombassa. My duty is office messenger work. I am charged with duties of cleaning offices manually.
My manager <name/> in February, 1991 asked me to supervise the loading fertilizers in <-_transporters> lorries which fertilizer was to be transported to Nairobi. We had Amana Transporters, and Bayusuf Transporters. The loading was at confined warehouse at Sangamwe. I was assigned the duty of supervising loading and writing out deliveries. My deliveries had originals and duplicates. Originals were white and duplicates yellow in colour. In the deliveries I record the truck number, drivers name, drivers identity card, quantities of the fertilizer and the driver was required to sign the delivery. I used to ask the driver how many tons his lorry is authorised, to carry. He would tell me then I would work out what quantity he was supposed to carry. It was D.A.P. fertilizer.
The fertilizer was packed in bags each of 50 kg. I would write the delivery and the driver would take both deliveries. The driver would then carry the fertilizer from confined warehouse, then he would transport it to Nairobi. The driver brings the fertilizer to Nairobi and gives the receiving clerk both delivery notes. The delivery clerk check the fertilizer to agree the number of the bags in the lorry with the number of bags shown on the delivery. If there is shortage or damages, the receiving clerk indicates the shortage or damages on both delivery notes. Then the duplicate is send back to our shipping office of KGGCU in Mitchel Cotts building (Wit. shown delivery notes). Yes, I wrote out these delivery notes. This delivery note is No. 228878 dated 1.3.91 for 660 bags by 50 kg of D.A.P. Amana <-_transporter> vehicle No. KVH 339 ZA5577. In this delivery note original shows that 31 bags were damaged but the duplicate shows 21 were damaged (original marked Mfl 1(a) and duplicate marked Mfl 1(b). The <-_transporter> writes his own delivery while I am writing out my deliveries. I am with the <-_transporters'>' clerk who writes out his own delivery. In this one the clerk to Amana wrote out his own delivery notes which is this one (marked Mfl 1(c) ) which delivery shows the same details as my delivery shows the same details as my delivery note. Mfl 1(c) shows 31 bags were damaged. Amana <-_Transporter> had sole contracted Star <-_Transporter> who also had his own delivery note. This Mfl 1(d) shows 21 bags had been damaged. This is the 2nd delivery note which is No. 228879 dated 1.3.91, vehicle KYL 984 ZA 9725, 840 bags DAP by 50 kg damaged as per original 44 bags (marked Mfl 2(a) the duplicate shows 14 damaged (marked Mfl 2(b).
Amana <-_Transporter> delivery (marked Mfl 2(c) shows 44 damaged. The subcontractor star transport delivery note (marked Mfl 2(d) show 44 bags damaged.
I am the one who wrote out all the above delivery notes. In each of them the m.v. Reg. Number, the driver's name, his ID/Card and the name of <-_transporters> name are recorded and each driver has signed each delivery note. At Nairobi and the receiving clerk signs the delivery note at the space (signature of the recipient and the official rubber stamp) space. In each of the delivery note it is signed by the receiving clerk and the rubber stamp KGGCU Nairobi Kenya Ltd. I don't know what happens to the damaged fertilizer. I don't know the clerk who was receiving the fertilizer at Nairobi. The receiving clerk at Nairobi records the amount of fertilizer damaged or missing.
Xxd by <name/>: I am attached to Mombassa KGGCU as a messenger. I agree we have other officers in our Mombassa office. We have clerks. We have managers in Mombassa office. At material time we had shortage of staff as we had a lot of work and this is why I was assigned this job. There were many lorries. I was writing out delivery notes supervising that the goods were loaded in the lorry. We had warehouse clerks and gate keeper also who were checking that the correct load was put into the lorry. I have over three years service. That was the only time I was asked to do this job. I agree every year we receive fertilizers. I agree I was not given the job of follow-up as there were other staff who do that job. The <-_transporters> had their own duplicate delivery. The warehouse clerks had tally sheet. The tally sheet are not in court.
<name/>: There are very many documents which have been marked as Ex. and I need time to peruse them and get instructions. I ask for adjournment.
Pros: No objection. We need four days. We have very long witness from Mombassa and other towns and we have a lot of documents to deal with.
Court: We have not finished even one witness. This is a very long case with witness from Mombassa and other town and a lot of documents are involved. We need at least four days p/s.
Order: B/E for accused to go to court one on 15.5.92 for fresh hearing date.
P.W. I Recalled S/S
Xxd by <name/> (Cont.) On arrival in Nairobi the goods would be received by the receiving clerks who would indicate damages or shortages on the deliveries. There is inter-office communications document called KGGCU 14. The damages and loss or shortage must be recorded on the delivery. He could also record the same on KGGCU 14. I have heard about KGGCU 58. I do clerical job at times but in a small way. I don't know KGGCU 58 form. The receiving clerk must raise claim form for the damaged and shortages but I am not sure. I know the <-_transporters> pay for damages and shortages so the cost of damaged and lost bags is deducted from their transport payments. The <-_transporter> is given a copy of delivery so that he can claim transport costs (Wit. shown Mfl 32(a),(b) and (c)).
On Mfl 32(a) four bags are shown as damaged
On Mfl 32(b) four bags are shown as damaged
On Mfl 32(c) four bags are shown as damaged.
There are no alterations on any of Mfl 32(a), 32(b) and 32(c).
(witness shown Mfl 15(a), 10(a))
I can see this Mfl 10(c) and I can see a signature there and even on 10(b) I can see a signature. The signature belongs to the <-_transporter> M/s Amana. I can see Mfl 15(b) and 15(c) and 19(b) and 19(c) are also signed by the <-_transporters> after receiving them from the drivers. I don't know why <-_transporters> sign these form.
Re-xd by pros: I don't know at what stage the <-_transporter> signs these documents.
2nd P.W. X/M S/S
My name is <name/>. I am employed by Kenya Green Growers Coop. Union and attached to Mombassa depot. I am employed as a clerk. I am attached to shipping office at Kilindini. My main duty is receiving invoices, from <-_transporters> or any other clearing agent. I also check invoices and I make payments for the claims. I know P.w. 1. He is my <-_workmate>. He is attached to Baraki Godown. After our goods fertilizers are delivered into our up-country depots the depot sign the documents that is delivery notes. They indicate if they have received all the goods in the delivery note and if there is shortage or damages they would indicate on the delivery note. There are three copies of the delivery notes. The first which is white is left with the receiving branch. The 2nd copy which is yellow in colour is returning to us the sending depot. The 3rd copy which is white is the book copy. I am the one who receive the yellow copy. I check the copy and make payment to the <-_transporters> (write them cheques). If there is shortages I deduct the value of the damages or shortage from the payment to the <-_transporter>. I receive yellow copy attached to the invoice from <-_transporter>. We prepare a schedules showing the remarks which have been made on the yellow copies. After payments we retain the delivery yellow copy and the invoices. I know KGGCU 14 which is a memo.
This has nothing to do with delivery notes. This KGGCU 14 is written by the receiving depot and it shows damages or shortages. The receiving branch sends us the KGGCU 14 direct and the yellow copy of the delivery note is given by the receiving branch to the <-_transporter> who brings it to us with his transport invoice so we check if the yellow copy of delivery note agrees with the KGGCU 14 details then we pay. If the delivery note disagree with KGGCU 14 we make enquiries from the receiving depot and we can't pay till the clarification is done. KGGCU 58 is a form used by receiving depot to confirm the total of fertilizers delivered to them and the damages and shortages it is send to us direct by the receiving branch.
KGGCU 15 is our delivery notes which I have referred to above. I agree fertilizers was delivered to Nairobi from our Mombassa offices. I received all the invoices concerning this case. I can see these documents. Among them I received our delivery notes KGGCU 15 and <-_transporters> invoices. I have checked through Mfl to Mfl 13 which are here and I confirm that I am the one who received all the delivery notes and invoices from the <-_transporter>. I did not sign or indicate anywhere that I am the one who received them but I signed the <-_transporters> copy of his invoice to indicate that I had received his invoice and the yellow copy of our delivery notes. KGGCU 14 is an internal memo which is sent by the receiving depot so as to show how many bags they have received and how many were damaged. I don't reflect the cheques issued on the delivery notes, or invoice from <-_transporters>; but we prepare a schedule of what we have paid to the <-_transporter> and the shortage and damages. <name/> is the one who prepares the schedule showing payments. I don't know the <-_transporter>.
Xxd by <name/>: I am a general clerk. P.w. 1 works as a subordinate staff. He cleans the <-_godown> and works as a messenger. I am aware last year in February, p.w. 1 was given the duty of loading lorries bringing fertilizer to Nairobi I agree this was not his normal duty but I agree this wasn't his normal duty but the manager assigned that duty. We are eight clerks in the office. I can't tell why the manager assigned p.w. 1 a subordinate staff this work. We claim damages from the insurance company. We deduct damages from the <-_transporters>. I agree from Mfl 1 to 13 there are no shortages but only damages. I agree I am the one who received the yellow copies of the delivery notes. Before making payment I inform the manager about damages so that he can claim the damages. I agree the receiving office must raise the claim. The manager must sign the claim forms. I am not aware if the claim for damages was raised. We don't charge the <-_transporter> for damages but shortages. Nairobi depot retain original of the delivery notes and they send the duplicate copy. The receiving clerk raises KGGCU 14 showing the damaged bags and the shortages. The KGGCU 58 also confirm losses and damages. I am not aware of rechecking the fertilizer. We receive copies of invoices from <-_transporters>. We have not brought KGGCU 14 in court NO KGGCU 58. I don't know why these documents have not been brought to court. Immediately we receive the invoice from <-_transporters> we record it in a book. I agree this book is not in court. I agree the invoices from <-_transporters> have not been brought to court.
S1B064K
P.W. 1 NO. 28081 CPL <name/> Xtian Sworn States in English
Attached to Central Police Station. On 31.3.92 I received a report from Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The report was that a video machine had been stolen from one of the stores in the Ministry's Mombasa House Office. I visited the scene. There was no sign of breaking in the store where the machine was.
I picked those work in the store four of them for interrogation. There was the watch-man <name/> he is here (identified 1st accused) <name/> he's here (identified 2nd accused) and a fourth who was a watchman. His name is <name/>.
After interrogating them at the police station for 2 days, I recovered it at Nyamakima. I was taken there by <name/> (identified 1st accused) <name/> (identified 2nd accused) and <name/>.
<name/> is not here. They took me to a shop at Nyamakima where I recovered the machine.
The video machine is recovered is here.
Its serial No. 12112467 MFI 1. I took it to the police station. I then called Ministry of Information officials to identified the machine. They came with store lodger and control card.
Its this card No. 135420 MFI 2.
Its in respect of the video. In this card the video reflected here is described as 1/2" VHS Video.
The serial No is not reflected.
The video machine value is Kshs 140,000/=.
I kept the video machine and the card as exhibits.
I then charged the accused with this offence.
I produce the video machine Exh. 1. I also produce card Exh. 2.
Counsel for both accused.
I have not received instructions from 2nd accused. I ask for adjournment.
Court:
Counsel given up to 11.30 a.m. to get instructions for 2nd accused so that case can proceed then.
11.45 a.m.
Coram as above
Both accused present
<name/> for both accused.
P.W. 1 re-called informed oath still binding.
XXD by Counsel for both accused.
Yes I have identified the video machine as belonging to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
The Ministry of officials showed me the ledger Exh 2 and a invoice. The ledger here does not indicate the serial No of the video.
The other document had the serial number of this video, Exh. 1 on it. The theft was reported on 31st March. On 1st April is when I was led to where I recovered the video machine.
Yes on 31st March I picked four people as I said earlier.
I also picked a fifth man by name <name/> in respect to this case.
I did not pick any others. Yes those five people are only people I investigated in respect to the case.
<name/> works in Ministry of Information. The people I arrested remained in cells.
<name/> also was remanded in cells. I released them on 4th after recovering the machine. I investigated the case together with another officer. I recovered the machine in possession of one <name/> at Murimi's Electrical.
I was led to that shop by both accused and <name/>. I picked <name/> 1st accused on 31st.
I picked the 2nd accused on the 2nd. I still maintain that he, <name/> and <name/> led me to where I recovered the video machine. The watch-man was still in police station custody on 1st April.
<name/>, <name/> and <name/> all work together. The two watch-man  also work there. <name/> is the person who reported the loss of the video to me.
Yes <name/> works with them. There <-_were><+_was> no <-_leakages><+_leakage> at the scene.
Yes I suspected the theft was an inside job.
Yes it was on that basis that I arrested those who work in the office.
When I recovered the machine from <name/>, I did nothing to him.
Yes its after this that I charged both accused with the offence.
I have been in the force for the last 17 years.
I got explanation from <name/> concerning how the video machine came to him. <name/> who accompany me and the accused to the shop is not a watch-man. <name/> identified him to me at Nyamakima (1st accused). That <name/> is a witness in the case.
<name/> is a business-man. He deals in <-_eclectricals>. I did not know him before. After taking both accused to Nyamakima, they showed me <name/> and all four of us went to the shop.
<name/> was in another shop when he was identified to me.
>From that shop to where we recovered the video was quite a distance.
We were going to where the machine was when we came by the shop where <name/> was.
We were not looking for <name/> and on meeting him was purely an incidence. The two accused did not allege at any time that they sold the video to <name/>. All three of them showed me where they kept the machine. The machine was kept as luggage tied up in a paper. <name/> who was in the shop where the machine was recovered is my witness.
All this happened at about mid-day on 1.4.92.
It was a Monday. There was heavy traffic. We were walking. The shops were open. The accused and those arrested together with them were not tortured while in custody.
(1st accused now stands and shows healed lacerations on right hand and back).
I know nothing about those injuries.
(2nd accused shows few scratches on back)
I know nothing about those marks.
I still maintain that none of the accused were tortured while in police custody. I also maintain that both accused collectively led me to <name/> and also to the shop where we recovered the machine.
Re-examined
On 31st March I arrested <name/>, <name/>, <name/> the watch-man. I arrested <name/> on 1st April.
Those who took me to shop of <name/> and <name/> (1st & 2nd accused) and <name/> (not watch-man)
In all I had suspects as <name/>, <name/> & <name/> watch-man, <name/>, <name/> and <name/>.
I never suspected <name/> of the offence.
All the suspects I released are standing outside the court as witnesses.
Witness released.
P.W. 2 <name/> Xtian Sworn States in English.
I work with Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Films Department.
I am a Film Officer 11. My duties there are (1) To see the services of the Laboratory Section are run properly. They include film processing. Laboratory personal, one <name/> does the video dubbing. He is assisted by several officers including <name/> & <name/>.
Numatic video machines are used in dubbing. In my section we have 2 VHS and 2 Numatics. The machines came under my section in June 1990. I got them from the stores. To get them I raised a requisition form for them. This is the requisition I raised.
Its No. 643791 its for 2 1/2 VHS video recorders serial Nos. 12112464 and No. 12112467.
It includes other machines MFI 3. The two VHS machines were brought to my section at Mombasa House.
On 30.4.92 I assigned <name/> to dust the machines. The following day, 31.4.92 I went to that room to check if <name/> had done the job.
To my surprise I found one of the V.H.S. Video machine missing.
I informed the head of the Department, <name/>. We could not trace the machine within the building. We reported the matter to Central Police Station. Several of us were called including 2nd accused. 1st accused called but he was not in. <name/>, <name/>, and our watch-man, <name/> & <name/> were also called to central police. The two accused were left at the station.
Others arrested with them were also released.
On 2.4.92 Police ran us to go and identify the machine. The missing video is the 2nd one in my requisition form.
I saw it later and identify it as the one which was missing. Its here in court Exh.1. Its serial No. <-_taies> with 2nd VHS video machine in my requisition. Serial No. 12112467 (shown). We also used a ledger card to identified the machine. Its here Exh. 2. It does not show the serial No. of the machine. It shows value of machine as Kshs 14000/=. Both accused are Film Editors in my section.
1st accused and 2nd accused joined us in April 1991.
I have been keeping the requisition voucher.
Produce requisition Exh. 3.
Court:
Witness stood over for cross examined at a later date.
Prosecutor
I have 3 witnesses present
P.W. 3 <name/> Xtian Sworn States in English.
I work with Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as a laboratory Technician. I am based in Kericho. In March 1992 I was based at Mombasa House Nairobi. On 30.3.92 at 1 p.m. I do re-call I was in Mombasa House. At 1 p.m. I opened the video room to dust the machines. That morning we had a meeting and the head of our department had asked me to dust the machines. Immediately I opened I saw the floor of the room was too duty. I decided not clean it. At same time a number of people came in saying they wanted to see the news. I switched on the monitors and we sat down to listen to news. I know <name/>. He's here (id 2nd accused). He was one of those who came to watch news. He's an editor in same department. I know <name/>. He's here (id 1st accused). He's also an editor. I saw him on that day in the video room. He had also come to watch the news among others. We watched news and also a programme called neighbours.
At 3 p.m. there were four people left in the room. They were <name/> <name/> and the two accused.
I told them to bang the door when they are ... because I was returning the key to <name/>.
The locks were type one can lock without keys.
A JVC professional radio cassette is a video recorder. We had one on 4th floor in the video room, Mombasa house.
Its the same room we were using that lunch hour. On day in question I saw the video recorder on a table where its usually kept.
There were two video recorders that time.
Both were there that day. I left the two in the room when I left at around 3 p.m. I went back to the room the next day 31.3.92. It was 9 a.m. I went to 4th floor and met <name/> my supervisor <name/> and <name/> both of engine ring and a number of technicians. I was told that one of the video cassette recorders had disappeared. I told them I left the machine and four people in the room. I opened the room to confirm and found that only one video recorder was present.
We looked around for the machine in 4th & 5th floor. We could not find it. In the evening of that day two police officer came and told us to go and record a statement which I did. I never saw the machine again.
Prosecutor
The machine was not produced. I will require to re-call the witness to identify the machine.
Cross examined by Counsel for accused.
I recorded my statement on 4th. Yes I was arrested. I was arrested on 31.3.92. Between 31st and 4th I was in the cells.
I was at Central Police Station. I was released on 4th. I was taken once daily to room 10 at the police station for interrogation. I would not say the interrogations were polite. There were no threats or violence. My duties at Mombasa House was film processing, negative cutting etc.
I was not in charge of the room. <name/> was. The room was opened by me on 30th. Yes the responsibility of the room was under me. We are many people who can enter the room. We are 14 in all. I was going to Kenya polytechnic to see my project supervisor since I was a student there that is why I left at 3 p.m. Editors and Technicians could collect the keys to the room and would return them without locking the room leaving it for the last person to lock it.
The Editors edited while labs did the laboratory work and technicians did dubbing. I have been working in that place since 1989.
Nothing had disappeared until 30.3.92.
The only key I know to the room is the one kept by <name/>. The room was locked to secure it. We acted out of trust among all who worked in that room. I trusted the four men I left by the room because we had been working together on that basis.
There is a security officer on fourth floor. He was supposed to check those leaving the floor. There is another security on ground floor checking all properties leaving the building. One has to have a gate pass from head of section for whatever item they carry out. I could not imagine with all the checking that a video machine could have left the building without a pass. I cannot say who did it. We leave work at 5 p.m. Not all of us leave at 5 p.m. There is no order of two people should enter or leave work. We looked for the video in the various rooms on 4th and 5th floor.
Re-examined.
<name/> keeps the keys to the video room. Any laboratory technician and any editor could be given the key to the room to enter for use. One was given the keys to the room when they had work to do there. I had left other people behind to lock the room in various occasions in the past.
I had also been left behind to lock up on various occasions in the past. Witness released. 
S1B065K
P.W. 1 X/M SWORN STATES:
My name is <name/>. I am a <ea/>matatu driver. I operate route 44 to Kamiti West.
On 9.3.90 at 9.45 p.m. at 10.00 p.m. I was in Uncle Peter bar which is at Githurai. I had gone there for a beer. Some one called <name/> found me in the bar. He bought me beer. Before I had drunk that beer that man called <name/> came out from inside the bar. We were sitting at the <-_verandah> of the bar. I could see him as there was electricity.
I knew <name/> who is that man (accused) even before. He used to be my neighbour where we lived at Githurai. Accused also used to sell us cassettes. Accused came out of the bar and went to the toilet. As accused came from the toilet he passed where we were. Accused was wearing black open shoes. As accused passed by where we were <name/> stepped on accused foot and accused shoes came off. <name/> then pushed accused shoes with his leg under the seat we were sitting.
<name/> then started asking accused for shs. 200/= which accused owed <name/>. Accused started asking <name/> for his (accused) cassette which <name/> had taken and had not paid for.
Accused produced shs. 160/= and dumped it on the table. He told <name/> that he (accused) had the money and would not pay <name/>.
Accused then picked shs. 100/= from the money he had put on the table leaving shs. 60/= on the table.
Accused said he had given <name/> two cassettes worth shs. 140/= so since accused owed <name/> shs. 200/= <name/> should take the shs. 60/= which added to the value of the two cassettes (shs. 140) would add up to 200/=.
As they were quarrelling one policeman came and stopped the quarrel. Accused then removed his other shoe and left it with <name/> telling him to select or choose whether he wanted his life or his shs. 200/=.
Accused then ran to his home. He stayed for three minutes then came back with his hand in his trouser pocket. Accused produced something half way from the pocket and looked at it then pushed it back into his pocket. 
Accused then asked <name/> to be ready to die. <name/> then ducked or sneaked away going towards the toilet.
I then stood. Accused then produced a pistol and shot me on my stomach here (witness showing a scar on the stomach), which stomach has another large scar which looks like operation scar).
(witness <O/> a pistol. It looks like that pistol, Pistol <?/>webbley by make serial No. A24753) marked MFI 1).
When he shot me I thought he had shot my leg so I bent and then accused shot again and the bullet missed me and it shot the wall. I then fainted. I gained my memory the following day 10.3.90 just to find myself in Kenyatta Hospital. I stayed in Kenyatta Hospital for four days. The doctor operated my stomach to remove the bullet. The bullet had just entered my tummy but no exit wound was there.
I was released from hospital and I went home. Later I was fetched from home. I was taken to Parklands Police Station. I was introduced to police parade where I was able to identify accused among about ten other people. I was given P3 by police which I took to the police surgeon who examined me and filled the P3 which I returned to police.
Accused used to be my friend. We used to drink with him. He used to give us cassettes and we pay later. Accused was not drunk although he seemed he had taken beer.
Cross-examined by accused:
I had known you for over five years. You were coming from the toilet when <name/> stepped on one of your shoe and it came off. There was electricity in the bar. On the <-_verandah> there are over four electrical bulbs which were on. You shot me while standing just about two yards from me. I know <name/> as he is a matatu driver and we work with him.
No one took your shoe by force. I do not know why you shot me. You shot me because I was with <name/>. You used to carry the cassettes selling them as you walk.
Re-examined by Prosecutor:
Nil
P. W. 2 XTIAN MALE SWORN STATES:
My name is <name/>. I am a <ea/>matatu driver operating route No. 44 Kahawa West. I live at Githurai.
On 9.3.90 at 10.00. p.m. I was with P. W. 1 at Uncle Peter's bar at Githurai. We sat in <-_verandah> and ordered for beer.
Then one man called <name/> who is that man (accused) came from inside the bar. He owed me shs. 200/= I gave accused my two cassettes which he did not return and they were worth shs. 200/=. We stayed for over two months without meeting. When accused came from inside the bar I called him. I asked him to pay my money. He said he owned me no money. I told him to leave something of his with me as a pledge. He then started trouble there. One of his shoes came off and I took it, and kept it under the stool. Some of accused friends got hold of him and returned him inside the bar. He came again and poured our drinks which we were taking. He then left. He left his shoes with me.
Accused came five minutes later. I heard accused behind me. Accused warned me. He ordered me to give him his shoes. I heard a sound like a broken beer and I fell down. I saw PW 1 had also fallen down. I then heard the sound of like a shot and I escaped. The sound came from behind me. The place was lit by electricity. I ran away home. The following day I was told PW 1 was in hospital. Accused owed me shs. 200/= but I owed accused nothing.
Cross-examined by accused:
Your shoes came out when your friends were restraining you. I did not take your shoes by force. When your shoes came off your foot I took it. Your friends restrained you and took you to the bar then you came back again and poured our beer. We were sitting in the <-_verandah> and you were standing next to the short fence which separates the compound and the <-_verandah>. You demanded your shoes from me and before I gave them back to you I heard a shot.
Re-examined by Prosecutor:
Nil
Court:
RIC for hearing at 2.00 p.m.
At 2.00 p.m.
Court as before
P.W. 3 XTIAN MALE SWORN STATES:
My number is 34974 P.C. <name/> attached to Kassarani police station. On 9.3.90 I was in Uncle Peter's bar in Gaithurai. I was there from 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.
At 9.00 p.m. I was with the owner of the bar <name/>. I told him I wanted to go home. As I was walking out I found PW1 who was quarrelling with that man accused who is <name/>. I asked them not to quarrel and I went to the bus stage. I stayed at bus stage till 10.20. p.m. and I missed a bus. I decided to go back to Uncle Peter's bar to sleep in one of the rooms. On arrival in the bar I found accused and someone else. As I was passing then, I was about two metres behind them there was a gun shot. Then a second shot was fired. I concealed myself with the wall and I shouted to members of public inside the bar not to come out as there were thieves. I did not know what was happening.
I stayed there till accused and another man walked away. I then went to check what had happened. I found someone on the ground. I checked him and I found he had been shot on the stomach. I called the bar owner <name/>. We carried the shot man to the road to look for transport. We got someone who gave us a lift to Kasarani police station. We reported to inspector <name/> who was on duty and PW 1 was taken to Kenyatta hospital. We returned to Uncle Peter's bar in search for the man who had shot PW 1 who is accused. We could not trace accused so we arrested his girl friend who tried to help us get accused. Accused was traced and arrested later. I saw accused get the pistol from his left side trouser belt with his right hand and I saw accused shoot PW 1. There was electricity light so I could see accused as I was about two metres from him.
Cross-examined by accused:
You were with another person I saw you shoot PW 1. I do not know why you were quarrelling with PW 2. You were quarrelling in Kikuyu. I did not bother as to what you were quarrelling about. There was pressure lamp. There was a lot of lights so I could see clearly. I agree there is electricity lighting in the bar. The pressure lamp was near a small butchery which was outside but there were electricity lighting in the bar. We came to your house but you were not there. We broke your house but you were not there and we searched for the gun but we got nothing. One of the shoes you had been wearing in the bar was in the house. There were some of your photographs in the house.
Re-examined by prosecutor
Nil
P.W. 4 XTIAN MALE SWORN STATES:
My name is <name/>. I am a businessman. I own Uncle Peter's bar in Githurai. On 9.3.90 at 10.00. p.m. I was in my bar. I was in my bedroom. At 9.30 p.m. I was with PW 3 who is my friend. He told me he was going away. He left me. Now later I heard some bang as if a beer bottle had been smashed against the wall. I did not go out. Then I heard another bang. As I was going out I meet people running. PW 3 was one of them. He told me not to get out of the bar. I asked him why. He told me that one of my customers had been shot. I started whistling to call for help. Later I came out. I found one of my customer had fainted on the ground. We got a vehicle. We took him to Kasarrani police station then took him to hospital. The officer on duty went to visit the scene of shooting. We went to my bar and police left me in my bar. I knew the suspect who shot PW 1. I knew PW 1 and 2 and even PW 3 before this shooting.
Cross-examined by accused:
P.W. 3 told me that someone had been shot by someone. PW 3 told me the man who did the shooting did it in front of him PW 3. I had no watchman in my bar as I had just started operation. I had workmen, I have electricity lighting in the bar. I installed electricity in the bar before I started operation no we installed electricity I am not sure after the shooting incident but we had pressure lamps. I had seen you before the shooting incident i.e. at about 8.30 p.m.
Prosecutor:
I am left to call four witnesses <name/> was expected at 11.00 a.m. Inspector <name/> was to come from Wajir. We sent signal for him to be bonded and we got a reply that he was bonded but he is not in court.
<name/> ballistic expert is not bonded as he is in Kakamega court giving evidence. The firearm has not been brought to court as it has been taken to senior R.M. court Muranga where it is required as an exhibit.
I beg for adjournment.
Court: R/C to court one on 3.7.91 for fresh hearing dates.
P.W. 6 XTIAN MALE SWORN STATES:
My number is 43396 P.C. <name/> attached to Kasarani Police Station. On 10.3.90 at 9.00 p.m. I reported on duty. IP <name/> and some other officers were detailed to Uncle Peter's bar in Githurai. We went to the bar. There had been shooting the previous day. We then searched for the gun bullet cartridges. On reaching near the door we traced a bullet head which is this one (marked MFI 3). We got this bullet head at the outside door in the <-_verandah>. I checked and found the bullet had hit the bar door and penetrated it then it had hit the wall. The bullet head MFI 3 had red colour (witness shows red colour on the bullet head). The bar door was painted red. I gave MFI 3 to inspector <name/> who took it to the ballistic expert.
Cross-examined by Accused 
S1B066K
P. W. I <name/> M/A/S STATES:
I am employed by Nairobi City Commission. My duties as a sergeant. I am attached to Investigation offices to check on Nairobi City Commission properties. On 4.4.91 I was around Muindi Mbingu and Moktar Daddah street at around 11.00 p.m. and I was on patrol when I sighted two city commission workers, one is a mechanic (first accused identified) and 2nd accused <name/> is a city <ea/>Askari the first accused was removing coins from the parking metre and putting it in his pockets. The 2nd accused was with him. I became suspicious and I hide myself and waited to see what to do and I waited and I saw Accused I move to a other metres and I saw them remove money from one metre to another and pocketed it. I trailed then to Moktar Daddah street. Accused I then removed money from the other parking metre and I saw the lady move away and I confronted her and she came and I held both of them. I detained them and I asked the lady accused 2 and asked her why she was seeing accused I take money and she was not doing anything. On the way accused I pleaded with me but I refused and took them to my boss where accused I was asked what he had and he said he had only 10/= he was using for testing the metres and the boss insisted he removed everything and we asked him to remove his uniform and we recovered Kshs. 96/= from him. They were silver coins. They are this ones (MBI I). We then took them to Central police station. When the mechanics are repairing the metres was to be accompanied by the City <ea/>Askari like accused I and accused 2. After they repair the money in that metre should be returned.
Cross-examined by the defence:
I have enough experience in the metre system set up. I also trained partly. There are 2 keys to a metre. They are both for opening the metre. I did not ascertain about the keys in possession of the accused I. The 2nd accused acts as a guard. I did not receive a complain from Accused 2. Accused I was dressed in a dust coat on top of his clothing. The dust coat is to repair the metre. If the metre is full you move to the next metre. If one finds the metre is full one only takes up the excess and put it in the next metre. It is not possible that all the metres opened by the <-accuseds><+_accused> were full and being emptied. If a mechanic finds there are foreign elements in the metres he has to repair the metre and if the it is stuck money, he repairs the metre and returns the money. I cannot recall whether the dust coat was opened or closed. I think it was opened. The dust coat had the tools. I ascertained some metres were working. They were 20 metres and he repaired all and they were functioning. I did not take a key from <name/> (accused I) when I arrested him. He removed it in my boss's office.
Cross-examined by defence counsel for accused 2:
I have been in City Commission for all over 20 years. I have known the accused for 3 years. I was not in uniform. The money from the metres are collected everyday. The mechanics are assigned where to work everyday. I did not only suspect but I observed what I have said. I held the 2nd accused as I thought she was escaping from the street where they were removing the money. A search was done but the 2nd accused had no money. The mechanic was to be given 5/= in maximum while leaving for duty. Both <-_accuseds><+_accused> were not doing their work and I was not hasty and suspicious. I found money in accused I's pocket. It was from the metre.
Re-examination:
I watched the behaviours of the <-_accuseds><+_accused> for a period of 30 minutes. I saw Accused I remove money from the metres and putting in the dust coat and his pockets. He was to return the stuck money in the repaired metre. I first arrested the lady few yards away from the man.
I have other witnesses but are not in court.
COURT:
The case is adjourned and sent to court number I for Re-allocation on 6.8.91
D. W. I <name/> M/A/S/S/STATES
I have been working with NCC as a parking metre mechanic. I was given a No. 2 0909788. I was employed on 2.4.89. I was trained at our workshop at Ladhies. We repair and maintain parking metres. When repairing metres we are to make sure every metre works if it has not we repair and make sure it is in order. Metres block to papers, foreign coins, match box sticks. We are to remove the blockage. We retain the normal coins in your dust coat and put into an empty metre box. We are given work by a workshop foreman one <name/>. On the 2.4.1990 I was allocated work to repair metres at Banda, Market, Moktar Daddah and Muindi Mbingu and Koinange street. I work in the company of a City <ea/>Askari who sees what you do. It is the City Inspectorate who assigns the City <ea/>Askari. On the 2.4.90 the City <ea/>Askari was <name/>. We worked in those places and at around 11.40 a.m. I was along Moktar Daddah street. There were showers and I had opened the metres and removed the coins and closed it again and did that hurriedly as it is not advisable to expose the metres. I took all the collection coins to other metres box. I had attended more than 200 metres and I found coins and other substance which I put into my dust coat. I can see this diagram, it has two compartments. I attend to this part. If we find coins in the compartment I open I remove and put in the next metre which is empty. I wish to produce this document as an exhibit (DI exhibit). I know Sergeant <name/>. Prior to the incident I did not know him. I work with the city engineer. <name/>  does not work there. I did not put the money in my civilian clothes. The witness never found me moving into a case on Moktar Daddah street. <name/> arrested me as I opened the metres. On the 2.4.92 I did not pocket the alleged money of the NCC. It is not required that I reported on duty W/O any money, of my own. Before resuming duty we are not given any coins as per <name/>`s evidence. The money in question was found in my dust coat.
Cross-examined by the Counsel for Accused I
Sergeant <name/> took all the items in our possession. We were searched at the City Hall.
Cross-examined by Prosecutor:
I inspected over 200 metres. We remove coins and put them in the next metre which is empty. The metres I removed coins in were on Moktar Daddah only from about 70 metres and during that time there were showers. I found all the other metres blocked. I did not go into a case I had not formed an opinion to convert the money into my own use. I did not work in conspiracy with the City <ea/>Askari in my company.
Re-examination: On Moktar Daddah street there are two lines on opposite side of parking metres. I was arrested on the covered side repairing a metre I was not moving away.
Court:
The case is adjourned and sent to court number I for re-allocation.
D. W. 2 <name/> F/A SWORN STATES:
I work with Nairobi City Commission. I have worked with NCC for four years as a City <ea/>Askari. I am aware of the charges in court. I do not admit the charges. On 3.4.91 I reported on duty as usual and I was to go and work with a Mechanic, one <name/> (accused I). We were deployed to work along Taifa road but I was to work with mechanic at Muindi Mbingu and Moktar Daddah street. My duties were to charge the tickets and check the metres as the mechanic repaired the metres. The mechanic performed the duties and in the course of the duty one sergeant <name/> (PW I) came and arrested <name/> saying the mechanic was stealing the money. I was with the mechanic closely and sergeant <name/> took the keys to the metres and said <name/> was stealing the money. We were both taken to City Hall. I was not aware <name/> was stealing the money. I was taken to the office and I was searched. I was not arrested as one of us went to a chips shop. I was not acting together in stealing the money with accused I. We were released to go home and told to report the following day and I was taken to Central Police Station. I did not steal any money. The money recovered from one metre is to another. We keep the money in a dust coat. <name/> had a dust coat. I was not there when <name/> was searched. I did not have a dust coat.
Cross-examined by Defence Counsel for Accused I
Nil
Cross-examined by C/P
I am a city <ea/>Askari. I have been for four years. In charge the tickets. On that day I was told to accompany the mechanic. I was arrested along Moktar street. I was just standing next to the metre. It is the mechanic who was opening the metres and repairing. I cannot remember the No. of metres we opened. The mechanic recovered some money from the metres. I did not know how much the mechanic recovered it is the mechanic who took possession of the money. The mechanic was putting the money in the dust coat. We were arrested together. I never handled the money. I was to make sure the mechanic did not go away with the money and I was also charging the metres.
Re-examination: My duties were to observe the mechanic. The mechanic was to keep the money recovered in the next metre. There were several metres along Muindi Mbingu which were ... The mechanic is allowed to keep money in his dust coat and he did so.
We request for an adjournment to take summons to effect service.
C/P
I leave it to court.
Court:
The court notes that his is the third defence adjournment sought by first accused's counsel. It is granted as a final adjournment. The defence should try to avail their witnesses in court on next hearing date.
D. V. 3 <name/> M/A/S STATES:
I am employed by the NCC in the City Engineering Department. I am a parking metre foreman. I know <name/>. He was an employee in my department as a parking metre mechanic. On 2.4.91 I assigned <name/> work and so did I on the 4.4.91. I assigned him on Muindi Mbingu, Biashara Moktar Daddah. The work of parking mechanic is to repair the spoilt parking metres. We assign them pliers, screw drivers and a place to repair the repaired metres. We give them dust coats. We do not give them any money to start work with. We do not restrict them from having money. I know sergeant <name/>. He works in the City Inspectorate. The mechanic (metre) are trained in the workshop for 12 weeks. In a parking metre we remove money once a week. The mechanic is allowed to put the money in the dust coat to move it from one metre and drop in another metre. 
Cross-examined by the Defence counsel for accused 2
Nil
Cross-examined by the Prosecutor:
I have been in the City Commission for 26 years. I am IC of metre mechanics I do not do the repair work myself. I may just patrol around. Accused I is merely an employee in my department. Usually when a mechanic goes to work, the mechanic is given a City <ea/>Askari to make sure the money is not stolen by the mechanic. The paces between two metres is hardly 3 paces. You keep money in the next metre if the one preceding it is blocked. If a metre is blocked, it could only be carrying only 10.00 to 12.00. If the money was about 96.00, it could have been recovered from 9 metres. If one finds that the metres are blocked the money collected is a lot, he makes a report to the collectors.
S1B067K
P.W.1 Adult male sworn
My name is <name/>. I live at Sultan Hamud. I do have a kiosk which sells tea at Sultan Hamud. On night on 19/12/90 at 9.00 p.m. I was going to my house from kiosk before I reached home. I heard noise of railway being cut. The railway passes near my home. When I looked to see what it was I saw someone on top an iron post. I could see him as there was moonlight. I was about 30 metres away from the iron post. I saw person carrying something like pliers. I do not move near where the man was. I saw another person standing on the ground. I had not seen the people before this incident - I then walked to my home. I did not go to talk to people as I thought they could be railway people. On 20/12/90 I woke up at 4.00 a.m. I went to my kiosk. I met 2 people who were carrying 2 bags at the same place where I had seen people previously. I did not know what was in the bags. I then passed people. I looked at their faces and then went to Police post to report, that I had seen people carry bags. I was accompanied by 3 police officers to the railway station. I showed the police officers the people I had seen carry bags. These 2 people were at Railway station and had put their bags down and were each standing beside their bags. The 2 people were asked in my presence what was in bags but they kept silent. They were each told to open bags and each of them opened a bag. When bags were opened I saw irons in the bags and something else which I think is used to cut wires. If I see thing I can identify it. I know irons belong to railways as railways passes near my home. If I see the two bags I can be able to identify them.
XXd by Counsel:
I first saw 2 accused persons at 9.00 p.m. as there was moonlight. I cannot tell who among 2 <-_accuseds><+_accused> was up on pole and who was standing I could not be able to identify at night who the two people I saw were. At 4.00 a.m., there was moonlight I saw 2 people were at police they were one metre away from me at this time. These are the two bags (MFI - 1). These are the wires (MFI 1-2) which I saw in the bags. I can also be able to identify the pliers (MFI -3) I can be able to see one bag contained 6 bundles of wires and another 7 bundles of wire (PW 1 counts bundles in total 13). I can be able to identify the two people I saw at Railway station (identified as A1 and A2). Later I wrote my statement to the police.
While at the station I saw the bags on the ground.
Re-exam: When I found the bags on the ground each of accused was holding one bag which were on the ground and were standing next to the bag.
PW.2 - Adult male sworn
I am No. 24372 sergeant <name/> attached at Karengwani Police post. On 20/12/90 at 5.00 a.m. I was at the police post. At 5.10 a.m. <name/> came to police post and I looked at the two people for about 2 minutes. From time when I saw 2 accused at 4.00 a.m. till I reached police post it was 30 minutes. I came back with police officers to the Railway station. There were many people waiting for Rail while the two <-_accuseds><+_accused> were apart from the other passengers. I knocked the office where I was. I opened for him and asked him the problem. He told me on 19/12/90 he was going home at 9.00 p.m. from the hotel, he saw 2 people carry a bag each at same place he had earlier seen them. He told me he had left people at Railway station. I accompanied <name/> together with 2 other police officers to station 30 yards from the station. I saw 2 people whom <name/> identified them to me each person was having a bag. I identified myself to 2 people as police officers and asked them what was in bags. They first kept quiet I asked 1st accused (identified to court) to open his bag when he opened I found 7 rolls of wire and on pliers. The 2nd accused (identified to court) opened his bag and I saw 6 rolls of wire in the bag. I arrested the 2 accused and took them to Rail police. Later I took the 2 <-_accuseds><+_accused> persons about 1 km from Railway station where I saw wire had cut. I went back to the railway station and 2 <-_accuseds><+_accused> were taken to Makindu Police station by my 2 police officers together with the luggage they had. I did not accompany the 2 <-_accuseds><+_accused> to the Makindu Police station. I can be able to identify 2 bags which I saw 2 <-_accuseds><+_accused> with (MFI - 2). The 6 rolls of wire were in bag which A2 had while 7 rolls and pliers were in bag which A1 had. I wish to produce bag 13 rolls of wire and pliers as Exhibit (Exh 1 - 3). I had known PW1 before. I had not known the 2 accused before. That is <name/> (identified as PW1)
XXd by Counsel for A1 and A2
At the time I saw the 2 <-_accuseds><+_accused> persons the bags were on ground next to 2 <-_accuseds><+_accused>. The passengers were waiting for passenger train which comes at 5.00 a.m.
I do not know why the two accused persons were standing apart from other passengers. I wrote my statement which was truthful. In my statement, it is not indicated that the two <-_accuseds><+_accused> took me where the wires were cut and that they also took me to place where fire had been lighted. I wrote my statement on 24/12/90. 4 days after the incident. There was passengers waiting for train but do not know how many they were. I am saying the truth. It is true that the two <-_accuseds><+_accused> were taken to Makindu Police station together with Exhibits for further investigating action.
<name/>
Pros: No Re-examination.
Court: Due to pressure of work re-allocation in Court 1 on 5/7/91.
Pros: I apply for travel and <-_subsistance> allowance for PW1 <name/> travelling from Sultan Hamud to Nairobi and return and <-_subsistance> allowance 2 days.
Court: <name/> be paid travel from Sultan Hamud to Nairobi and return and <-_subsistance> allowance 2 days.
P.W.3 - Adult male sworn
My name is <name/>. I live at Kileleshwa. I work with Kenya Railways as a technician in telecommunications.
On 8/3/91 I can remember at 9.00 a.m. I received a call from C.I.C.I.O. Nairobi to go and identify some wires suspected to be stolen. I went to C.I.C.I.O. Nairobi and found wires which were put in 2 bags. On inspection I found they were copper wires which we use with our telecommunications in state in which they were in they could not be used as they were coiled and burnt. When wires are in use, they are not burnt. I lifted the 2 bags which wires were in and they were heavy. Wires are about Kshs. 24 per kg when I lifted the bags. I approximated they were about 90 kg. I did not investigate to find out where the wires came from. I know Kalengwani and Kima sections the wires which I saw at D.C.I.O. are used along the Kalengwani and Kima line. If I see the wires I can be able to identify them at this stage.
Counsel: The exhibits have to be in Court as this witness is <-_refering> to them.
P.W.3 Continues to give evidence before this case I had not known the two accused persons at all.
Court: Exhibit not in Court and PW3 will have to be recalled to be XXd case adjourned - re-allocation Court 1 on 4/9/91.
P.W.3 Adult male sworn states:
My name is <name/> continues to give evidence. If I see the things shown to me by Kenya Railways I can be able to identify them (ide. identified they are copper wires which cannot be used as they have been interfered with. The value of copper wire is 24 shs. per kilo I estimated the weight to be 90 kgs. The value is about Kshs. 2,160/-. I had not previously known the two accused persons but came to known them later. I was informed later that the two accused persons were employees of Kenya Railways.
XXd by Counsel for both accused:
I did not go to scene where copper wires were found. It is possible copper wires could be found elsewhere.
PROS: Next witness is giving evidence on statements from the <-_accuseds><+_accused> but I wish to clarify some thing first before.
Ct: F.M. 2.30 p.m.
PROS: There is still another witness and I will seek for a further adjournment later on.
Ct: Case adjourned as remaining witness not present. Re-allocation Court 1 on 7/11/91.
<name/> advocate for both accused - present.
P.W.4 Adult male sworn No. 55741 P.C. <name/>:
I was at Kalengwani patrol base but currently I am at Namanga Police station. On 20/12/90 I was woken by sergeant <name/> (PW2) at 5.00 a.m. <name/> said there were people who had cut wire of rails and he wanted us to arrest the people. I was with sergeant <name/> and A.P. <name/>. Sergeant <name/> had received information from someone who led us to where people were. Person whose name I do not remember showed me 2 people at the railway station. These people were standing at railway station. We went to where the 2 people were and introduced ourselves to them as police officers 2 people had 2 bags. The two bags were on the floor beside 2 people. 2 bags were <-_infront> of 2 people I saw standing other people were not near the two people I interrogated the 2 people about the bags. I opened the 2 bags and saw wires were in the bag. I arrested the 2 people and took them near railway station and we waited for train to come. We took 2 people to Makindu Police station where we booked them in the occurrence book. I visited place wire was allegedly removed from it was near Kalengwani primary school. While near Kalengwani primary School I saw wires were missing from 6 railway poles. If I see 2 people arrested I can identify them (identified). If I see the bags and the wires I can be able to identify them these are 2 bags containing wires (Exh. 1 & 2). That accused (identified as 2nd accused was standing next to this bag (while that person (identified as A1 was standing next to this bag.
XXd by Counsel:
Other people at station were 50 metres away from 2 people.
P.W.5 - Adult male sworn
Pros: I have just shown counsel nature of evidence I wish to tender its charge and caution statement taken by this witness.
Counsel: I wish to raise preliminary objection to the entire statement of this witness. 1st it was irregular for same officer to take charge and cautionary statement from both accused arising from same charge. The body of the confession is exactly similar. I wish the Court to take a look at the caution.
Court: Ruling on preliminary objection will be on 10/2/91.
P.W.5 - Adult male sworn states:
My name is called I am Inspector <name/> attached to C.I.D. Divisional Nairobi. On 24th December, 1990. I charged and cautioned the accused persons before the Court. The 2 <-_accuseds><+_accused> were brought by corporal <name/> and <name/> for charge and cautionary statements for charge of stealing. The accused persons wrote the answer to the charge in their own handwriting. They made statements in their own hands. They signed it and I counter signed. Statements were taken voluntarily without any threat. Each of the accused were brought differently. These are the statements of the <-_accuseds><+_accused> 1 & 2 (MFI -4) (MFI-5) I cannot identify the persons I took charge and cautionary statements from. 
S1B068K
P.W.I Adult male Xtian sworn states in English
My name is <name/>. I work with the Ministry of Commerce Department of <-_Intermalt> joint boards section. My duties include Inspection of Joint loan boards, I have been in that section since 1982. Other than inspection I am also responsible for analysing financial statements and other matters regarding joint loan boards. I receive the financial reports from the field ie the final accounts and quarterly reams which are received 4 times in a year, Ist quarter 31/March, 2nd quarter 30/June, 3rd quarter 30/September, 4th quarter 31/December, each year. In total we have 46 loan boards in the country are established by the Minister for Local Government under S. 104 cap 265 Laws of Kenya, and one of the functions of those units is to issue loans for trade purposes in their areas of operations, each board has a membership of a <-_chartimen> who is normally the District Commissioner of that area, a secretary who is the District Trade Development officer of that area, 3 members appointed by the Minister and 3 members appointed by the Local authority of that area, what or trader wishes to apply for a trade loan he does so on a prescribed form it is form CIT 220 while being completed and all answers in the form are completed, the applicant forwards that form to the secretary whose function includes vetting that applicant when the applications are vetted and the secretary gives his recommendations and views about the particulars applicant the secretary is expected and is required to call a board meeting to consider the application and also consider the recommendation of the secretary as regards that applicant so as to call that board meeting the secretary is required to give a notice of such meeting for a period of not less than seven days so as a quorum to be joined at least 3 members of the board must be present to join it. Out of the 3 members one of the members must be a member appointed by the Minister Administrative the department insists that at least 14 days notice must be given so that the permanent secretary commerce is represented at the meeting policy matters have to be discussed during that meeting which include among others approving of trade loans. At the time of calling the board meeting the secretary is expected to circulate the items of agenda to be discussed during that meeting the same copies must be substituted to the permanent secretary commerce. The District trade Development officer receives and <-_vetts> application for loans and he is also the treasurer to that particular board, under that portfolio he issues all the loans to the successive applicants he is also responsible for receiving the loan repayments. He is expected to maintain books to accounts and he is also expected to prepare financial statements and to account for the money that he receives after banking such money into the official bank account. He is also the supervisor of the <-_supertive> staff. In the process of vetting the applicant revisits the applicants premises and also discusses with the financial issues. The provincial trade development officer is an ex-officio member of these boards. Nobody is eligible unless approved by a properly convened board meeting. On 22.11.88 I accompanied with <name/> who was then my immediate boss and the Deputy District of internal trade to Isiolo to inspect the Isiolo joint loan board and investigate general his management of the Isiolo inside office, resulting from reports that had reached the headquarters from general complaints by both members of the public and also the staff members.
(Witness: can I refer to my report because it is about 4 years old).
Court Proceed.
P.W.I continues, consequently to the visit I discovered that out of the loan received a total of Kshs. 22,449/80 had not been accounted for. Also confirmed that there was an <-_wint> agreement between the accused and 3 loan defaulters who owed the board a total of 22,299/. A total of Kshs. 47,000 had been issued out to 4 people without the boards authority it was also discovered that the accused had issued Kshs. 25,000/= as trade loans to two unqualified people. On return to Nairobi a letter was written to the permanent Secretary giving the details of who had been discovered and the permanent secretary was requested to take any disciplinary action seemed fit. It was signed by Mr. <name/> the deputy director of internal trade it was not issued to the permanent secretary it was put away and the matter restored there. Later on it was discovered that on the statutory period of notice of meeting had not been given but 2 days notice had been given instead and the board convened administratively after every board meeting the secretary is required to prepare minutes of that particular meeting and circulate such minutes and a copy must be forwarded to the Accounting officer who is the permanent secretary commerce as soon as possible. Accused as soon as possible is interpreted to be 14 days after such a board meeting. The board meeting held on 2.6.89 minutes had not been received at the headquarters as of 26/90. So on 26.3.90 I was instructed to make yet another visit to the Isiolo trade office so as to inspect for a second time Isiolo district joint loan board. Among my inspection I was to verify details of the meeting held on 2.6.89. On arrival I was given some of the documents included 2 lists of approved loan applicants. The 1st list had 12 names who were to receive a total of 103,000/=. Among them there were 4 names that had been issued with loans. Prior to the meeting they were <name/> No.3. for Kshs. 10,000/= trading at Nyati Market. The second <name/> alleging trading in Township to receive Kshs. 12,000/=. <name/> of model Gashe market to receive 5,000/=. The list one was <name/> of Township to receive 15,000/=. The list MFI I. The second list taken in 1990 the accused person was transferred from Isiolo to Nairobi headquarters and another officer was posted there to take over the functions of the secretary and treasurer of Isiolo joint loan board. Accused it was only then that the minutes of 2.6.89 were received at my office which included a list of approved applicants who were in total 40 in number to receive a total of Kshs. 410,000/= among the 40 applicants in the 2nd list included <name/>.
<name/> appearing as No. 5 and No. 39 on the list under 39 she was referred to as <name/> to receive 15,000/= under No. 5 the same applicant was to receive Kshs. 12,000/=. There were anomalies because we would not have had 2 different lists for the same board meeting I produce the list as MFI I. When I found the list the cheques had already been paid and so I went to bank and requested for the cheques they were 24 in number including cheque No. 136626 paid to <name/> drawn on 5.2.90 for Kshs. 15,000/= cleared by Barclays Bank Isiolo branch on 13.3.90. At the back of this cheque it had been endorsed to one Mr. <name/> behind it a signature and ID card No. 5548868/69. Then account 1058329 it was later discovered that the endorsed person was the District special branch officer, Isiolo District marked MFI 2.
Cross examined by Accused:
I found the section in 1982. Prior to this I was at Busia Trade office. I became a trade officer in 1979. I had worked with Home affairs, office of the president East Africa customs and before this I was a treasurer of and a holder of CPA Certificate. We were a loan scheme return and had drawn of the receipts. Accused from 2 for loans issued form 3 is a ledger account noting defaults in repayment. These are prepared by the trade office. Yes I have been a trade officer in various stations. Yes I used to prepare those reports. The board is chaired by the District commissioner, 3 members appointed by the Minister but delegated to the PS and the Secretary recommends the people to the Chairman and particulars are sent to one PS i.e. name, qualifications, profession and standing in the community. And the DS vets and <-_apprents> from the recommended. Yes they must have acquired some standard of education. I have never come across an illiterate member of the board. An applicant approaches the trade office gives particulars of his trade within the locality and how he intends to use the form. He is issued with a form which he gives and the trade officer is that with the form. He then visits the business. The visit can be trade by the officers under the trade officer. Livestock traders can be considered. Yes it was considered a trade at the time they were in Isiolo. There is a schedule of the particulars of the applicant and purpose of issuing the loan. There is a vetting guide. Accused if he is a livestock trader then you indicate it in the vetting guide. The vetting guide forms part of the applicants file. You do not disburse the cheques until the minute are verified. I duly know of the meeting of 2.6.89 when you were in Isiolo. The list produced is the one from the meeting of 2.6.89. The procedure is to circulate before the meeting. In an agenda for considering loans. You must have a list of recommended names of the applicants, the recommended amount, the security supplied and the purpose of the loan, and the market place. The board is supposed to discuss and decide. As the secretary you give reasons for recommending or rejecting or pending the decision. The list is there approved and as the secretary you prepare the minutes and dispatch it and await approval. The secretary is the first signatory and the district commissioner is the 2nd signatory. The members are either to the minutes so as to confirm them. Before you issue the cheques, you are supposed to have all the files of the applicant i.e. App. form vetting guide recommendation of the secretary. The secretary normally the committee issues on understanding to register the interest of the particular board. The DC is the chairman because he is the administrative authority in the area. I got the list from your office and I did not fabricate any list. I am in job group H and I don't know your job group. I am not your Junior. One of the conditions is that an approved applicant was open an account if he had none before the application. Accused the secretary has the duty to ensure that this is true before the cheque is released. All our cheques are crossed. In case you did not encourage then to open accounts then you have failed miserably because he is supposed to develop trade in that area. I was coming to Isiolo to inspect the office not you as a person. I visited there once when you were there I wrote a report on my return. The money that could not be accounted from was established from your books of account. The letter did not reach the PS and I did not know why. 1st visit was 2.11.88. 2nd visit in 1989. My report was not malicious and it is not true that I came to cut meat and I sniffed around. You should us who circulated the report. The 2.6.89 was the second board meeting. Your list has a detention of centre names (points). The unqualified people did not have business then were no securities and the names were not approved by the board. The unqualified people are <name/> and <name/>. They No. 1,3,660/ dated 22.8.89. MFI 8).These payments were discovered after 2.6.89. <name/> was disqualified officer from the documents because she had no business in Isiolo. <name/>'s was supposed to have a retail shop, we expected her to have a shop, we expected her to have a shop in Isiolo. 
S1B069K
P.W. 9 SWORN AND XX. BY <name/>:-
Yes I am a supervisor but I used to work in a junior position as a postal officer. I used to deal with FB.21 documents. Before they are filled they are kept where the customer has access. They are in bundles or individually, a customer can come and be given a single form. When one is filled, they are brought to me and I immediately take to the supervisor as a postal officer. I pass them over to the supervisor in person but at City Square a messenger collects these forms and takes them to the supervisor who checks and stamps them. At City Square post office, we had two special stamps <?/>atago. In extreme cases where he is very busy, we could have a 3rd one. The supervisor keeps them under lock and key and they cannot be released to postal officers. Some stamps were withdrawn eg. one broke down and was removed. It was broken viz the handle on the side came out. I cannot tell when it started breaking. A 2nd one was withdrawn for similar reasons and we received a new one. It was between mid 1980 in the course of 1989 but they were used before the discovery of the breakage. I cannot know how many forms had been stamped with the two defective special day stamps. All parts may not come out clearly. I pointed out those that I signed for, I disagreed with those that did not pass through me. But I admitted those that passed through me. Ref: MFI-14(a) I would not know how many such documents were passed on that day of 25.10.89. They are at post bank, at the very final stage, Ref: MFI-14(e) I cannot be able to know how many more were stamped on that day. On 11.10.89, Ref: MFI-14(f), I wouldn't know how many other forms were passed and if they are the same or not. On 24.10.89 Ref: MFI-14(b) would not know how many were dealt with on that day, unless they were brought here for comparison some of these forms merely have a date and only a few have an initial apart from the date. I do not know whose initials they are. I wouldn't know all the supervisors of 1989, but I remember a few.
I went on transfer about 12.2.89 I have used a special date stamp which does not show the details. There are obvious defects in these date stamp impressions.
xx. by <name/>:-
On S.B.21 the name of the depositor, address, office code. No cheque digit amount to be withdrawn and amount in the book signatures and identification i.e. No. on ID.CARD. All these details are checked by a counter clerk and then counter checked by the supervisor. The code is the most important item and I wouldn't tell from which office it has emanated. Another supervisor can be there. The outgoing supervisor or officer in charge of section hands over the stamp to the incoming supervisor. The officer in charge does not have custody of the stamp. He is the other person who can have access to the stamp.
Court:- <name/> enters court.
P.W.9 xx. by <name/>:- Continues.
Ref: MFI-9 it was dealt with by the officer on counter No. 16. There is no initial on the stamp and I cannot tell who approved it.
Ref: MFI- I cannot tell whose initials these are. But I knew the initials of those I worked closely with. It is a unique stamp. Irregularities would first be defected by the supervisor.
xx. by <name/> for 3rd accused:-
Yes the special date stamp is kept under lock and key. These forms have a similar impression to a special date stamp. A genuine withdrawal form would have been completed.
The supervisor then checks for all details and the stamps the form for payment. Without the date stamp and initials of approval of all details, there can be no payment. Reconciliation is done at a different and later stage. I do not do <-_reconciliations>. I do not know if it was done in this case.
xx.by <name/>:-
I have worked as a counter officer for about ten years. I am fully conversant with particulars needed on these forms. A customer fills and complete the form the form and the counter men checks it ... writes ID.CARD NO. connectives of entries entered and passes it to supervisor who approves and initials it for payment and then the cashier pays it. It is not part of the duty of a counter officer to complete a form. But a counter men can only assist.
Re-Examination:-
The officer in charge can handle a date stamp out only <-_rearely>. It is the supervisors who handle it. To be a genuine date stamp, it could have a logo, code No, and a word like "AKIBA" MM.
P.W.10 A MALE ADULT SWORN AND STATES:-
My name is <name/>. I work for K.P. & Tel. at City Square as the postal superintendent. I became a superintendent in 1985. My duties are to control staff under me and supervision like checking in the pass books, etc. I also check SB 21 forms. Two of us checks them two in the morning and two in the afternoon. In 1990 we were four in total. I check the entries in the SB.21 form for entries if they are similar in the pass-book and if it is reported stolen or not. I then stamp with the day special stamp and I initial it in red ink. To- date I cannot identify the initials of other supervisors. We had 3 viz Nos. 114, 370, and 364, the two were being view at one time and one was removed from service. It was No. 570 due to its defects. Ref: MFI-5, none of these ten S.B. forms passed through my hands and none of them are initialled. They are not date stamped but have the post office stamp. The stamps thereon are similar to the ones we used but does not show the code No. But the logo is correct, they were issued on 9.2.90 Ref: MFI-4, 20 S.B. forms, they appear all to have been initialed. They all been the special date stamp. The code No. are not clear visible. The logo is similar to the ones we used and the date is 9.2.90. Ref: MIF- 6(a) and (b) none of them passed through me and they are initialled but I cannot identify the initials and are dated 24.1.90 as the date of issue. They all bear the day stamp but no code no. Ref: MFI-7, none of these forms passed through my hand. They all bear the date stamp. None of them have the code No. and are been initialled. But I cannot identify any of the initials and date of issue is 9.1.90.
The custody of the special date stamps is normally with the supervisors who keep them under key and lock when not in use. They are the only ones who handle the special date stamps. We work in shifts and they are the same date stamps we hand over to the incoming shifts. No other staffs other than the supervisor uses these stamps. When on duty the date stamps are only available to the 2 of us.
I know 1st accused, 2nd accused, 6th and 7th were working under me as counter officers at one time or another.
xx. by <name/> for 1st and 6th <-_accuseds><+_accused>:-
I was working as a supervisor who is none or less like a superintendent. The two ranks are the same. No. 370 was bad we discovered when it could not give any code impressions on S.B.21 forms. I cannot tell which date but it was sometimes in January, 1990. No it was not after the complaints, we the supervisors discovered that it was not putting the code No. Its me who discovered and I noted it in my diary. The filed <-_daries> are kept in the store. I last saw it when I was at the counter sometime in January, 1990. I did not tell the police that. Yes, if a special stamp cannot produce a code No, code Nos, cannot appear in these S.B.21 forms. We do stamp it on a form. The moment it was discovered, it was not in use. It was only one that was removed from circulation. Ref. MFI-10 has special stamp and initials and the code No. is not visible a dot, i.e. heavy ink. We do not have a dot in our special stamps. The dot is in place of a code No. They are not visible those dots are all in all the forms. They are just marks when the special stamps were discovered to be defective, they were withdrawn immediately. They are marks, these stamps were being kept by my colleagues and myself. In October, 7th 1989 the code Nos, were 370 and 364 and hence 370 or 364 was to appear on MFI-10. I cannot tell which one was to appear there. Ref: MFI-11 either 370 or 364 was to appear on day form on the stamp at the bottoms and the same applies to MFI-14(a)(b)(c),(d)(e)(f), MFI-15(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), the code No could either be 370 or 364. But I am not clear as to which one would have been used on each of them. I did not handle any of these documents above. I did not process them. All <-_accuseds><+_accused> were in my shifts and these forms could not have been processed in my absence. I would have seen them using a different stamp my shifts was busy most of the time. They would only pass the documents to us to process. At the counter they only enter figures and Nos and pass them over to us for processing and stamping and they would only pay after confirming the day special date stamp. We were the only people having the stamps. If I initialled a form, they would pay one counter officer verify the <-_informations><+_information> and stamps then with post office stamp and put their Nos. and pass them to us for processing. Supervisors cannot conspire to defraud without a counter officer revising the passbook. Yes I can bring the diary containing the faulty day stamps on which dates the defects were discovered and withdrawn. There are records which are kept. The book shows the handing over report and when the stamp was working and withdrawn.
<name/>:- I also need the book.
<name/>:- I leave it to court.
Court:- Case <-_reffered> to court No. 1 on 22.6.92 for re-allocation for at least a week to cover the 13 witnesses still remaining. Bond Extended.
P.W. 1 A MALE ADULT SWORN AND RE-CALLED AND STATES:-
Last time I was stood over to go and collect a register wherein the rubber stamps were used then, but I have not been able to trace it. It is lost, in the circumstances, I do not have it to offer.
xx. by 1st accused:- NIL.
xx. by 6th accused:- NIL.
xx. by <name/> for 2nd and 8th Accused:-
I only supervised the 8th accused at City Square, main counter, he was working under my shifts for about 5 months. I have been a supervisor at Community HQ. G.P.O. Tom Mboya post office and at City Square post office stock payments stock lists come from Savings bank HQ. after every forty nights indicating the passbooks allegedly stolen or those circulating irregularity e.g. adding in funds irregularity. Every supervisor would have the stock payment list to check on it. The significance of the Nos. on the special date stamps is the differentiation of which post office it would have been used I would be able to tell it one is used in another post office. There were about ten to eight cashiers on the counter they were not changing unless their duties changed. I would not tell the signatures of every cashiers, but I could tell of those I was working with.
xx. by <name/> for 7th accused and also for H/B. for <name/> for 7th accused:-
I know its supposed to be kept for a period of 2 years and its called a diary book. But this particular one has disappeared it would have shown which supervisor had which stamps and on which particular days. Yes, I recorded a statement with the Police and I signed every page of it. Ref. the statement, some were destroyed either by heavy inking or destruction. 
S1B070K
P.W. 3 - Adult/Male affirmed states:
My names are called <name/>. I am a watchman at Kenya High School. I have work there for 15 years. I work in shifts either in the mornings or evenings. On 4.1.90 I was on duty that day. I reported at 2.30 p.m. It was a Friday. I was to work until 11.00 p.m. on 4.1.90. I knew the deceased he used to be a bursar at Kenya High. He had no worked there for long. I did not see the deceased that day at 5.30 p.m. that day while at the gate I received a telephone call from the coin box. The caller asked me if that was Kenya High School. I said yes. The caller told me it was Jogoo house and the bursar had a sick person at home and he had gone home and I was to tell <name/> the news to that <name/> informs the headmistress about this. It was at 5.30 p.m. when I received the call. The sound was of a man but did not identify the sound. The caller disconnected the call. I was alone at the time I could not leave the gate. At 6.00 p.m. Mrs <name/> the headmistress came at the gate. I then explained to her that I had received a call from <name/> that the deceased had a sick person and would come on Friday the next day. After giving the message I stayed at the gate. The next day I reported on duty on Friday. I did not see the deceased person then. The next day one driver called <name/> called me and told me I was needed by the headmistress. I went to see the headmistress. The H.M. told me to explain to me the call I had previously received. I explained to her. I then received information from H.M. deputy H.M. and two teachers talking. They told me the bursar had been found dead at Dagoretti. The deceased lived in the school compound. He lived with a relative of his. That is the relative (identified as <name/>). When I received the telephone call on 4 I saw<name/>. The next day and the day deceased died I did not see <name/>. I did not used to talk to the deceased much. I would not identify the property of the deceased. Parklands Police station officers came to Kenya High and interrogated me and others. I then wrote my statement at Parklands Police station. I would not tell the friends of the deceased person. I did not go where the deceased was killed.
xxed. by Counsel:
I received a telephone call that the deceased had a sick person and had gone home. The caller did not tell me when the deceased went home. I would not know what caused death or who could have caused the death.
P.W. 4 - Adult-Female affirmed:
My names are called<name/>. I work at Kenya High as a telephone operator. I have worked there for 27 years. Calls to the school all pass through me. There is a coin box booth at the gate which does not pass through the operator. The deceased was a bursar in the school. On 4.1.90 I went to work at 8<-_a.> am. I continued to work till quarter to 11. The bursar in his office requested me to call out. He rang out three times. I remember one call was for Nyayo House. Another for C.M.C. and another for the company which brings food to the school. I continued to work. I went for lunch and came back at 2.00 p.m. At 5.00 p.m. I left leaving behind the bursar. The next day I came on duty at 8 a.m. I found the office of the bursar open. The day I saw the deceased at his office on 5.1.90. I continued to work until 4 p.m. when I left work at 4 p.m. I left for home. At 4 p.m. I saw the deceased at 4 p.m. when I left for home as he had not finished his work. I saw the secretary of the headmistress at the time. I live in the school compound so did the deceased. On 6.1.90 and 7.1.90 I did not see the deceased person. On 6.1.90 I did not receive any information. On 7.1.90 I received news from the other workers that the deceased was no more. My office was far from the <-_decesed> person's office. I did not receive any information of a telephone call saying the deceased was at his home area and would not report on Friday. The secretary of bursar was Lucy Okoth. I do not know who lived with the deceased. I did not used to see the deceased much while at work. I would not identify
XXED. By Counsel: Nil
Court: Case will resume at 2.30 p.m.
Counsel: at 2.30 p.m.; I am before Mr. <name/>
Court: Due to pressure of work and also as counsel for one of the interested parties indicates he will be before Mr. <name/> at 2.30 p.m. reallocation in Court 1 on 22.394
Prosecutor: I apply for travel and subsistence allowance for <name/> from Nyeri to Nairobi and return.
Court: <name/> be paid travel allowance Nyeri to Nairobi and return.
Mr. <name/> for the suspect
Inquest hearing on 7.6.94 in Court No. 12.
Prosecutor: I have 3 witnesses who are present. <name/> for the suspect.
P.W. 5 - Adult-Male Sworn states:
I am Dr.<name/>. I was formerly at city mortuary as police pathologist. I am now a private practitioner. On 12.1.90 I do recall I carried out <foreign/>post <foreign/>mortem examination on the body of <name/>. Body was identified to me by <name/> and <name/>. The body was of a 29 year old male African. My findings were externally, there was a 4 cm. long cut on the left side of the head. There was a cut 15 cm. long also on the left side of the head. These cuts had sharp margins left side of the scalp was broken. Internally there was left side brain haemorrhage. As a result of my examination, I formed opinion cause of death was brain haemorrhage due to a broken scalp due to sharp head injury. I completed and signed a <foreign/>post <foreign/>mortem forms which I wish to produce as an exhibit (Exh. 1).
P.W. 6 - Adult/Male/Sworn states:
I am No. 32150 <name/>. I am attached at Provincial crimes, Mombasa. I was previously in Nairobi. On 12.1.90 at about 11 a.m. at the city mortuary Nairobi, I took photographs of a male dead body identified to me as <name/>. The body was dressed grey trousers white shirt and a tie. The body had a deep cut on left ear near the neck. The body was identified to me by Cpl.  <name/> of C.I.D. Parklands. I took 5 photographs of the body. Photograph No. 1 is a full length view of body. Photograph No. 2 is a full side length view of the body. Photo No. 3 is a closer view of the cut on the left ear. Photo No. 4 is a closer view of same cut taken from a different angle. Photo No. 5 is a facial view for identification. I processed the film to the photograph. The prints were made under my supervision. The negatives are in my custody and will be produced when required. I made a report of the photographs and wish to produce both as exhibits (exh. 3). I did not know how long the body had stayed in the mortuary before the photographs were taken.
Re-examination: Nil
P.W. 7 - Adult/Male/Sworn states:
My names are called <name/>. I am a sales representative at Cooper motors. I have been at Cooper motors from 1988. I met <name/>. I come from my village in Kilungu. <name/> worked at Kenya High School. I do not know where he lived. <name/> was a bursar at Kenya High School. I knew <name/> in 1980. I do recall in 24.12.89 I met the deceased. The deceased said he wanted to see me but I was in a hurry. I told him to meet me another day. On 26.12.89 I met deceased at Kilungu market Makueni district. It was during the day. The deceased told me he wanted a car to buy and I should assist him. I told him we revisit the issue in Nairobi. On 2.1.90 the deceased rang me and asked me to accompany him to view a car he had seen. On 3.1.90 I met the deceased person. We went to a professor's residence. The professor wanted to sell his <foreign/>volks <foreign/>wagen Beetle. We took the vehicle for a drive test. After we tested the vehicle I felt it was old and spare parts would be a problem so we parted 8-9 p.m. The following day, I think I phoned the deceased as I had seen a <foreign/>Volks <foreign/>Wagen advertised in the papers. When I rang Kenya High I was told he had travelled upcountry as there was someone sick. I do not know how many times I called the deceased. On Saturday 6.1.90 I travelled <name/> asked me whether I had learnt <name/> was dead. I told him I was not aware. He then referred me to Kenya Times Newspapers reporting the death. I then made my statement to the Police. I used to meet the deceased sometimes in Kilungu market. The deceased person did not complain to me of anything unusual. When we checked on the motor vehicle the deceased did not tell me where he would get the money to buy it or how. The deceased was not my personal friend but came from my home area. I last saw the deceased alive on 3.1.90. I did not notice the deceased had a watch. I would not identify a watch that deceased used to wear. I learnt the deceased disappeared before he died.
XXED. By Counsel: I would not know who caused the death of the deceased. We were <-_acquaintances>. I last saw deceased alive on 3.1.90 he never complained to me about anyone going after his blood.
P.W. 8 - Adult/Male/Sworn states:
My names are <name/>. I work at Wire Products Limited as an Ass. Manager technical. I live at Mbotela. I know the deceased as we are related. We are cousins. He used to be the bursar of Kenya High School in July 1989. I used to stay with the deceased at Kenya High School. When I lived with the deceased we were friendly as we used to go out together. I stayed with him until he disappeared on 4.1.90. The deceased did not take alcohol. I would sometimes go out with the deceased. I used to take a little alcohol. In December 1989 <name/> a lecturer at the University of Nairobi was to leave for U.K. in January. He had to dispose off property among them a <foreign/>volks <foreign/>wagen and a <foreign/>citroen. <name/> told me about this. I and the deceased were entered in the vehicles. I in the <foreign/>citroen and deceased in the <foreign/>Volks <foreign/>wagen. The <foreign/>citroen was going for 20,000/- and <foreign/>Volks <foreign/>wagen for 30,000/-. We had to look for the money. I had Kshs. 16,000/- and had to borrow the rest. The deceased also got the money partly from the savings and partly from co-operatives. On 3.1.90 at 6 a.m. I left the house leaving the deceased there. I left deceased sleeping. On 3.1.90 at 12 noon I received a call from the deceased to look at the cars. We then decided some (P.W. 7) <name/> accompany us to see the cars. We went to house of <name/> and we took a ride in the car for <name/> to see whether it was good as <name/> owned a <foreign/>volks <foreign/>wagen previously. <name/> said it was an old car. We both went home on 3.1.90. On arrival at Kenya High School we cooked and ate. The deceased had Kshs. 33,000/- when we went to view the cars. The deceased then counted the money at Kenya High School. On 4.1.90 I woke up at 6.30 a.m. left deceased sleeping. 
S1BCE01K
Pros: I am left to call six witnesses but only two can testify as I have no documents relating to the other four. I have two witnesses to call now.
3RD P.W. X/M S/S
My name is <name/>. I am <-/emplyed> KGGCU as the area <-/Manager> in charge of Eastern Kenya which includes Nairobi and Mombasa. My work is to supervise KGGCU branches in terms of administration. I know accused. He is <name/>. He is that man (accused). He was working as a clerk in KGGCU Godown at KNTC <-/alongyellow> road in <-/Industiral> Area. He was a clerk under me. <-_Accused><+_Accused's> work was to manage or supervise receipts and dispatches of <-/Fertilizers> stored at KGGCU stores. On 27.3.91 I received a letter from our head office. This letter was transferring accused from Nairobi <-/ware house> to KGGCU Nairobi branch. On receiving the letter I was supposed to get <-/some one> to take over from accused. I requested my <-/ware-house> assistant <name/> to go and <-/takeover> from accused. <name/> went to <-/takeover>. On 6.5.91 I got information from Mr. <name/> that there was fishy work which had been going on at the KNTC go-downs. On 7.5.91 I went to verify what was the matter. Since I had information as to where the operation went wrong, I went straight to the place. I found some labourer changing the fertilizers from 25x5x5x55 to D.A.P. <-/Fertilizer> bags. I asked the <-_labourer><+_labourers> what they were doing. They told me that they had been instructed to do the change by accused. There was no instruction to change. It is not even allowed. Each type of fertilizer has its own packing bags. I asked accused if he is the one who had issued the instructions and he denied. I then instructed accused and Mr. <name/> to take the figures of the fertilizers which had been changed and to take the figures of empty bags which had been emptied. I then reported the case to our internal auditors in Nakuru which is our head-office. I <-/reportedas> I suspected there was something wrong. The internal auditor sent a Mr. <name/> to verify. He arrived on 8.5.91 and started checking. I was asked to take over the store keys from accused. Finally it was confirmed by Mr. <name/> that there were missing <-_bag><+_bags> of D.A.P. fertilizers. From then our security officers took over the matter. We prepared a taking officer certificate which was signed by accused and <name/> so Mr. <name/> took over from accused. The handing over certificate was prepared by accused and Mr. <name/> and I witnessed the taking over certificates. Accused, Mr. <name/> and Mr. <name/> did the actual counting and after verification they made this stock take-check book. This report is in a form of a book. This report is in a form of a book with serial numbers which number is 183141. It is dated 15.5.91 and relates KNTC go-down. The stock take-check book is kept in the office. (marked Mfl 34). According to this document (Mfl 34) 50 kg. DAP fertilizer had a shortage of 1742 bags. This a bin card record kept in the stores. It is the control card in the store. This relates to DAP missing fertilizer and it is for the period 6.3.91 to 16.5.91 (marked Mfl 35). This is the office record for the same DAP fertilizer. We call it Kardex. It is number 80312 and the second Kardex is 80281 of the same fertilizer but it is kept in the office. There are two movements of fertilizers. There movement-in and <-_>and<-/> movement-out that is dispatch and receipt. When the clerk in the go-down receives the fertilizer he <-_entered><+_enters> it in into <-/Freight> book and then he transfers the same quantity into the bin card. After this he <-_write><+_writes> out another record called KGGCU 58 transferring the same quantity or information from the freight book into the KGGCU 58. The original of <-/Freight> book and the original KGGCU 58 is brought to <-/out> offices on Kampala road and from these details we enter the details into our cardex record.
After we had up-dated our cardex we forward the original of KGGCU 58 and original of the <-/Freight> book to our <-/Head> office and we retain duplicates. The second transaction is dispatch which is movement out. Here the clerk must get authority from the <-/ware house> manager to dispatch anything from the warehouse. The authority goes to the clerk in form of inter branch transfer (IBT). We call it KGGCU 50. The clerk receives the IBTs signed by the manager. When the clerk receives IBTs he releases the quantity he is authorised to dispatch. He <-/cant> release anything unless he has authority in IBTs form. Orders are normally released to our branches not individuals. After dispatch the IBTS is taken back to our offices in Kampala road and we update our cardex cards from the information from the cardex. I am aware of 1742 bags shortage. At the material time I was the <-/ware house> manager in Nairobi currently I am the Eastern area manager. I took over as manager warehouse Nairobi in February 1991 and in February 1992 I was promoted to <-/Area Manager>. There was another loss which was discovered by the auditors after intensive investigation.
Xxd by Mrs. <name/>: I knew accused from 1986. Accused since employment had been working in that <-/ware house>. KNTC was one of the godowns. There are many <-_go-down><+_go-downs> or <-_warehouse><+_warehouses> and KNTC was one of the many <-_go-down><+_go-downs>. We had leased a go-down at KNTC premises. We had only a small office for accused and the rest were stores. Accused had one labourer who was assisting him. We had eight stores in the KNTC warehouse. We had security hired from another firm who were guarding the place. There is a gate which is manned by KNTC security. At night we had our security guarding the place. Where we have our own compound we keep records of vehicles which come in but this was KNTC compound and many vehicles would come to KNTC so KNTC could have kept the vehicle record. KNTC personnel was not under me. It was <-_accused><+_accused's> duty to know what was coming in or going out. The KNTC had no reason to ask what our clients were carrying out. Accused would have moved out as soon as the handing over was complete. I made <-/some one> available to take over from accused. I <-/cant> remember when Mr. <name/> went to take over from accused but it was in April, 1991. My duty was to see that a proper handing over had been done. I am not aware that Mr. <name/> reported on duty in <-_accused><+_accused's> place on 3.4.91. I am not aware that accused and Mr. <name/> took stock on 3.4.91. The <-/store-check> books are in a form of a book. Page 183138 was missing from the stock check book and I have never seen it. I look at the records as <-/incharge>. Accused and <name/> signed Mfl 34. I did not count the stock. Accused and Mr. <name/> agreed Mfl 34 was correct. I was there during the taking over. The <-/stockcheck> records are kept by the clerk when not used. If they are used they are brought to my office stock check page 183138 was missing and I have never seen it. From page 1831348 to 41 were three pages. The bin card and <-/cadex> are records of stock. The freight book would reflect what was delivered. Mr. <name/> took over from accused on 15.5.91. On 27.4.91 I was away on leave and there was an assistant manager. Mr. <name/> is outside court. I had not sent Mr. <name/> to take over. Mr. <name/> was to take over the whole store and Mr. <name/> was sent there to see that accused did not interefere with the checked records as Mr. <name/> was away on urgent matter. Mr. <name/> was not coming to take over from Mr.<name/>. I am not aware of an earlier taking over. I gave verbal instruction to accused and Mr. <name/>. We wrote a letter asking for handover when we discovered malpractises. Mr. <name/> came from head office to witness the handover. Accused and Mr. <name/> signed a taking over certificate also. Mr. <name/> signed the handover certificate. He never refused to sign the certificate. Mr. <name/> told me that there was unusual operation in the <-/depo>. I went there and I found the usual changing the bags and they told me accused had ordered them to do so. I saw them changing the bags. The clerk employs casual labourers and he pays them from money from the office. I ordered the labourers to stop <-/th> <-/changin> the fertilizer. We did not charge the <-_labourer><+_labourers> because they were working under the instructions of accused. May be the <-_labourer><+_labourers> did not know it was wrong. If there are damages the bags are kept aside for insurance people to come and verify them for payment.
P.W. 3 <-/REcalled> S/S
Xxd by Mr. <name/>: Damaged goods are kept aside for the insurance claims. Whatever is damaged is reported on KGGCU 58 and even the good bags are reported. You put the damaged goods on delivery note. You fill the claim forms claiming compensation for damaged goods. I agree some claims were raised during <-_accused><+_accused's> period. We have internal claim forms and we have a claim for the <-/Railways>. Accused indicates the damaged goods and the manager signs. The number of damaged bags must be indicated in the freight book and also should agree with claim forms, delivery note and claim forms plus KGGCU 58. The manager signs <-_a><+_the> claim forms. When insurance received our claim forms we bargain. The insurance <-_come><+_comes> and counts the damaged bags. There is an office which deals with claims. We keep claim forms. Police collected our KGGCU 56, claim forms and freight book. On 12.5.91 which was <-/sunday> I was in the store with Mr. <name/> and Mr. <name/> but accused refused to come. We did not do anything as accused refused to turn up for handing over that Sunday. I withdrew the keys from accused on 8.5.91.
Mr. <name/>: I have few questions on the entries in the documents, and the documents are not in court now.
Pros: The documents have not been brought so we <-/cant> proceed any further. I have eight more witnesses to call.
Court: B/E for accused to appear in court one on 1.7.92 for fresh hearing date.
N.B: Long case two days.
4th P.W. X/M S/S
My name is <name/>. I am employed by KGGCU attached to <-/Industrial Area> Nairobi <-/Area> as <-/Warehouse> assistant. My duty is to manage other workers. I get instructions from <-/Manager> and implement the instructions then report back. The 1st week of April, 1991 I was instructed by p.w. 3 to go and take over our stores which were at KNTC along Yala road; as the officer there was going on transfer. I was going to take over the store from Mr. <name/> who is that man (accused). Accused had been <-/transfered> to our Nairobi branch. At KNTC store I met Mr. <name/> who was assistant manager and Mr. <name/> who is <-/incharge> of <-/Fertilizers>. I went to <-_accused><+_accused's> office. I told accused I was the one who was to take over from him. Accused then took me round the stores. I took over from accused on 15.5.91. We signed the handing over, <-/taking-over> certificates after checking the stores. We completed this store checkbook or checking sheet (Mfl 34). This checking sheet after checking went to our auditors. On this checking sheet I found in store 69223 bags 20x10x10 each of 50 kg fertilizers. I then signed the bin card which was showing 69223 bags of fertilizers. The cardex card which is kept under lock and maintained by a different person was showing the same figure. On the same store I found Muriate potash 50 kg fertilizers. I found 37185 bags each of 50 kg. each. The bin card and the cardex <-_cards><+_card> were each reading the same. I checked several other fertilizers now including DAP fertilizers 50 kg. bags physical store I found 1637 bags but the bin card was reading 3379 bags. 
S1BCE02K
HEARING STARTS
P.W. I <name/> S/S IN ENGLISH
I work with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as <-/Deputy> secretary. I recall that in the first week of January, 1993 one Mr. <name/> of HFCK rang my office. He wanted to know whether I had HFCK <-/Which> I opened in 1988.
I replied in the affirmative. The account was still operational. Mr. <name/> asked if I knew any official at HFCK. I told him I knew Mr. <name/> who was dealing with my <-/mortage> account which was closed in 1989 when I cleared the <-/mortage>. Mr. <name/> indicated there was a problem. I immediately proceeded to HFCK I alerted Mr. <name/> that I lost my identity card in the last week of December, 1992 and that I reported to police and got an abstract vide receipt No AU 683412 for 10.1.93 (Receipt marked with abstract Mfl 1). I got a new identity card No. 12372133. The number on the lost identity card was 1728399/64. All the documents bear my old identity card number. The abstract shows it was for loss of identity card. Mr. <name/> told me there was a problem with someone else's account not mine. He did not tell me the particulars. Mr. <name/> said I would hear from CID <-/Headquarters>. Later at the CID <-/Headquarters>, around February I was shown a chit purportedly in my name authorising withdrawal of money from an account from HFCK. I see the chit in question here in court. It is not dated. It is addressed to the banking manager HFCK. It purports to be in my name and <-/siganture>. The signature is not mine. The identity card No. quoted there on is No. 1728399/64 which is the number of my old identity card. The writing on this chit is not mine, neither the signature (chit marked Mfl 2). I now see a cash withdrawal slip dated 5.1.93 purporting to be in my name and signatures. It is not in my writing. The address quoted there on is 30050 which is not mine. I use my personal post box No. 61581 NAIROBI. The official one I hardly use for my personal transaction. I <-/dont> even know it off head. The withdrawal slip for <-/shs.> 75,000/- (withdrawal slip marked MFl 3). I did not authorise anyone to withdraw money at HFCK. My account number is 1/44431 at HFCK which is different from a/c. No 1/10/200 on the withdrawal slip. My account was intact. There was no interference. I wish to produce the abstract and receipt as exhibits herein (marked Exb. 1). The name <name/> on the withdrawal slip is not known to me. I do not know the accused. I have never seen him. Neither do I know the owner account No 1/01/200. I have only one account No. 1/44431 with H.F.C.K now.
<name/>
Xxd by <-/Accused>: nil.
<name/>
P.W. 2 <name/> S/S IN ENGLISH
I work with HFCK as assistant banking manager. I am <-/incharge> of opening new accounts authorising withdrawals, supervision etc. I do recall on 6.1.93 one of my officers reported to me that a customer had called in for a transaction. She wanted a cheque processed. It was for <-/shs.> 200,000/- The customer left and returned the next day. She came to the same officer <name/> and said that her account showed a debit of <-/shs.> 60,000/- which she was not aware of. I got this information from Ali Bwana on 7.1.93. The customer was in our office. I talked to her. She maintained she had not withdrawn <-/shs.> 60,000/- from her account. She held a joint account with her husband. The customer was <name/>, her husband <name/>. The couple had an account No. 1/2016. I told the customer to leave me with copies of the passbook to investigate the matter. I started investigations. Our officer <name/> remembered a transaction for <-/shs.> 75,000/- done on 5.1.93 which had been debited from account 1/1200. The original owner of this account is one <name/>. When I checked I discovered the name <name/> had been altered in the computer system to read <name/>. I called for the withdrawal slip for the 5.1.93 transaction, so too the register. Whenever there is a change in any account it must be recorded in our register for change such changes must be supported by evidence e.g. gazettement marriage certificate. The change in this case was reflected in the computer printout of 5.1.93. I see the printout in question for 5.1.93. It is a copy which I have certified. The printout shows that the account was now reverting to the name <name/> from <name/>. I could not get the initial printout which changed the account name from (Mfl 4A) <name/> to <name/> though I looked. This particular change was done after the <-/shs.> 75,000/- had been withdrawn from the account. I also recovered another document - daily transaction (Mfl 4B) check list for 5.1.93. This shows that account No. 1/1200 <-/wad> debited with <-/shs.> 75,000/- and that it was then in the name of <name/>, which name appeared on the withdrawal form used to withdraw (Mfl 3 id) (change form printout Mfl 4A, Transaction list Mfl 4B) I also saw a letter authorising withdrawal form the said account (Mfl 2 id). The payment is <-/shs.> 75,000/- was paid by Miss <name/>. The payee was <name/> being the title of the account at the time but the actual <-/receipient> was <name/>, as per the withdrawal slip and authorising chit (Mfl2). He signed on the withdrawal form at the rear.
After getting this information I contacted <name/> who denied having operated the account No. 1/1200. He however told me he had lost his identity card sometimes in December 1992. <name/> was our employee working in the computer room. We questioned him. We asked him to bring to us <name/>, but he was unable to. The matter was then reported to the police. <name/> is the accused <-/Identified>.
In the case of a change of names once documents for change are lodged with us; the information is authorised by an officer in the register. The name will be changed and the change will be entered in the computer and will be reflected in a document like Mfl 1 4A at the end of the day.
<name/>
Court: Witness stood down to bring register at 2.00 p.m.
<name/>
P.W. 3 MRS. <name/> S/S IN ENGLISH
I work with HFCK <-/AS A BANk> cashier. I do recall on 25.1.93 at 4.00 p.m. I was about to close when a <-/memeber> of staff came with a withdrawal slip for a customer who was said to have come late. The staff member is <name/> (Accused identified). This is the withdrawal slip he had (Mfl 3 id). He also had a savings book for the same customer and identity. I asked for authority to collect for the customer. Accused produced a letter authorising him to collect (Mfl 2 id.) I needed to consult my seniors regarding the payment. I was authorised by <name/> and <name/> to pay. <name/> is the first officer. He sent me to the 2nd officer <name/>. He allowed me to pay a payment of over <-/shs.> 5,000/- must be authorised in writing. Both signed on the withdrawal slip Mfl2 (shown) to authorise the payment to our member of staff. When the accused gave me the letter authorising him to collect on a customer's behalf I went back and asked <name/> and <name/> whether to pay. They <-_send><+_said> since it was a member of staff I should pay. I went back and the accused wrote his name and signed at the rear of the withdrawal form (Mfl 2-shown) I paid the accused <-/shs.> 75,000/-. He was working in the computer room as an operator.
We have four people working in the computer room.
<name/>
Xxd by <-/Accused>: When you brought Mfl 3 the signatures of <name/> and <name/> were already there. I however sought authority for them to allow me pay you on behalf of the customer. You gave me the letter authorising you to collect on behalf of the customer <-_whom><+_who> you said was outside. I did not see him.
<name/>
P.W. 4 <name/> S/S IN ENGLISH
I work with HFCK as banking officer in charge of operations. I oversee the identification of customers, computer operations, authorising payments over <-/shs.> 1,000/-.
I do recall on 7.1.93 at about 3.30 p.m. a member of the staff in computer room <-/bought> me a passbook register, withdrawal slip, identity card and specimen signature card of the account holder. <-/He> accused said the customer was his friend and he wanted me to authorise payment as it was past 3.00 p.m. and we had closed. I compared the signatures and identification documents. I sent him to the <-/Assistant> banking manager (O.P) Mr. <name/>.
Later P.w. 2 came and said she would not pay the <-/shs.> 75,000/- as the customer was not there. She said <name/> had shown her a better authorising withdrawal on behalf of the customer. I said she should not pay if she could not see the customer. Accused insisted he was authorised. I sent them to go to Mr. <name/> my boss and if he was allowed he could be paid. My boss <-/overrulled> me and <name/> was paid. A few days later a customer came and said her account had been debited for <-/shs.> 75,000/- at a time she was out of the country. I sent for the voucher authorising the payment and noticed it was not Mr. <name/>'s signature. To me it looked forged <-_whats><+_what's> more <name/> was out of the city then. I had seen a copy. I went to see the original voucher itself. I saw it had a cashier's rubber stamp whose number had been rubbed out. One could therefore not tell who paid. A cashier's rubber stamp number is assigned to only one person working at a certain counter. She/He is responsible for it and must keep it safe. The voucher in question had only one authority which was also questionable. I alerted Mr. <name/>. I went to the register and found the <-/Banking> manager and Miss <name/>. But the <-_name><+_names> on the voucher differed with those on the register itself. I decided to look at the reports for name changes for this particular account. I found that the names of the account holder had been changed from <name/> and <name/> to <name/> on 1.12.92 and later turned back to the names of the <-_complainant><+_complainants> who were the genuine account <-_holder><+_holders>. I alerted my boss.
Later on a withdrawal slip was brought to me in the name of <name/>. When I saw the slip I thought I had seen this name somewhere. I realized this was the same name which had been on documents brought to me earlier. I took a photocopy of the ID. <-/Card> signature card and authorised payment to the customer. I decided to see if the same method had been used in paying <-/shs.> 75,000/- as in that of <-/shs.> 60,000/- I discovered that <name/> was our customer holding a <-_totalling><+_totally> different account. His name however was used to transfer the name of account No. 1/1200 of <name/> into his name and later revert it to the genuine account holder (see Mfl 4A).
Xxd by Accused: We have a place where we keep documents lost in the bank and one working in the bank would know that and even have access. I did recall that the accused had brought to me the payment voucher for <-/shs.> 75,000/- (Mfl 3). I authorised payment and gave my signature. He had brought an identity card passbook and specimen <-/signture>. I retired and upon being satisfied I signed giving my authority. Here is my authority on Mfl 3. This was on 5.1.93. At the bottom of my signature I endorsed (known to <name/>). I did not see the customer but the accused said this was his friend. I thought he had already been identified at the cashier's desk. Later on 5.1.93 the cashier came refusing to pay and I told her not to since a different person was reviewing. 
S1BCE03K
Accused present
P.W.2 <-/Duly> sworn in English states
My name is <name/>. I am <-/Mananging Director> of Private <-/proximate> Insurance <-/brokers> Limited. I know the accused <-/Person> he had approached in early 1989 for <-/Employment>. He had worked elsewhere in the <-/Industry> and I requested him to join us on temporary basis pending his performance.
He finally joined us in March 1989 and I assigned him accounts executive. These are the people who attend to clients who come for <-/Insurance> services.
His main duties were to attend to clients and issue with <-/Insurance> company to obtain certificates for them.
His performance was good because he is capable but there were things which hindered his permanent employment because we got complaints of previous which he never paid to the <-/Company>.
In may 1990 I was planning to go to an overseas trip. Two weeks earlier there were </conplaints> regarding these clients were my close friends.
When they came to complain I asked the accused to stop working until I came back from my trip. I suspended the accused.
I came back in June 1990 at around 20th. From London I rang the office and learnt there was a serious problem where a customer had been issued a temporary certificate.
In April 1990 some cover notes had been issued which I had no knowledge of. The client wanted permanent certificate because he had paid the required premiums. I was told the client was told the client was making a lot of noise.
When I came back I realized Mr. <name/> was involved. There was no evidence in my office that the client had paid.
The <-/clietn> is <name/> who had insured hit two vehicles. I talked to <name/> when I came back and I asked him who he had paid. He told me it was the accused. He produced a note given to him purporting to be receipts (shown MFI I). The amount was <-/shs.> 11,000/= and the 2nd is <-/shs.> 21,000/=.
These were in respect of <-/Motor> vehicles KZH 002 and KAA 788D. The <-_complainant><+_complainant's> slips did not state what the payments were for.
I recognise these as Mr. <name/>'s hand writing and the signature is his.
The normal procedure is that money is paid to cashier or accountant who issues receipts and we have never run short of the receipts.
I checked and I found no records of Mr. <name/>. I checked from cash sales register.
This is a sales ledger (<-/Marked> MFI 2). I checked in the month of April and there was no entry of Mr. <name/>.
Mr. <name/> had started coming to our office in April 1990. I wondered why Mr. <name/> paid the money without receipts. I <-/adviced> him to go and take any action deemed fit. Including reporting to CID for further investigations. I reported to C.I.D <-/Headquarters>.
I later recorded a statement but as I did not want my <-/Company> to be maligned I wanted the matter investigated.
My assistant <-/Manager> is <name/>. I called Mr. <name/> and I paid him money and this was a big loss to my <-/Company>. Because of the complication the matter of the accused's employment was left pending. He is still suspended.
I talked to the accused <-_>to the accused<-/> I requested him to come and see me. He came once after the C.I.D. went to his place but we did not discuss anything.
<name/>
Cross-examined by Accused
You joined us in 1989. Your letter of application is dated February 1989. I asked you to start working in March 1989.
I could not give you a letter of appointment because I did not know your conduct. I had known you before you came to my <-/Company>.
I did sympathize with you because you used to be absent. I do not know if we had issued compliment <-_slip><+_slips> instead of receipts.
<name/>
Re-Examination: Nil
<name/>
PW3 Christian duly sworn in English states
My name is <name/>. I work for Blue <-/shield> Insurance Company currently.
Early last year I was at <-/blue shield> as assistant <-/General Manager> In May 1990 around 23rd one <name/> came to our office looking for <name/>. He was brought to me as <name/> had been sacked. When I asked his problem he said he had given <name/> Kshs. 21,00/= for a certificate of <-/Insurance>.
Our records did not show his names. The proposals were not <O/> (shown MFI 3).
I told Mr. <name/> that could not assist him because he was not in the register. He told me he had completed slips which were at his house.
I instructed our driver to take <name/> to his place or work so that he could come with the slips. They came with two completed slips for Kshs. 11,000/= and Kshs. 10,000 respectively.
Shown MFI I and 2 states:- They are these ones. Having proved that money was received by a proximate I gave the client a 14 day cover note until the <-/Managing Director> resumes. The <-/Managing Director> had gone abroad.
I ran after the accused and when I got hold of him he said he went with accused's records by mistake.
He promised to bring them but never did so up to the time I left <-/proximate>.
When the certificate expired I gave 14 days cover note until our <-/Managing Director> arrived and I informed him accordingly.
The compliments slips are not the ones we issued. We had receipts Mr. told me he was told the receipts were out of stock. The receipts were not out of stock when they are out of stock I am usually informed but this was not done.
The accused is present in court (identified). He was working as an accounts <-/Executive>. His work consisted of quoting premium but not receiving money.
<name/>
Cross-examined by Accused:
I had no incidents where complimentary slips were given instead of receipts.
I gave temporary cover note because the complainant had paid to our company.
It is not true that the proposal form was found in the office.
The 1st cover notes were issued by you.
Later
Court: Hearing to proceed
PW4 Christian duly sworn in English states
I am <name/>. I am a document examiner attached to Nairobi area. This is a full time occupation and I have over 25 years experience.
I remember 26.9.90 I received some documents from P.C. <name/> of C.ID. <-/Headquarters>
The documents had been separately marked. The first marked "AI" (MFI 2) and 2nd marked <-/"A"2> (MFI I).
There was also set of 8 specimens "B" (marked MFI 3a-). There was also a set of <-/non handwriting> of the accused marked <-/D"1-D6"> (MFI 5).
These are the documents I received and I was requested to examine the question written and the signatures on the 1st two documents <-/"A"I> and <-/A2> <-/AND COMPARE WITH SPECIMEN> Writing and signatures identified before this court. I did compare these as requested and in my opinion they were of the same hand so I made up a report which I give to the court. The documents were taken from my office from the same person plus a copy of my report. I retained one and which I now wish to give to court as exhibit.
(marked exhibit 6).
<name/>
Cross-examined by witness: Nil
<name/>
PW5 Christian duly sworn states
I am 56338 P.C. <name/> I am attached to C.I.D. <-/Investigation> branch fraud section.
On 20.7.90 I was in my office and I was called by Mr. <name/> senior Sup. of police who is the <-/incharge> of fraud section.
In his office he had another person called <name/> who is financial adminstration <-/Manager> of <-/proximate> Insurance <-/company>.
Mr. <name/> briefed me of a case the gentleman had reported and I was told to proceed with investigation. Mr. <name/> gave me two photocopies of complimentary receipts of money from one <name/>. The receipt was made of <-/proximate> Insurance by one <name/>. I left our office with Mr. <name/> and I went to his office I was to record a statement from Mr. <name/> who had dealt with <name/> about the receipt of the money and had conversed with <name/> about the transaction.
Unfortunately <name/> was not in the office and I went back on 23rd and found him. I recorded his statement and in the afternoon the same day I proceeded to Ngara Estate to look for Mr. <name/> who had paid the money to <name/>. I went with <name/> to C.I.D Headquarters, where I recorded his statement.
In the course of the investigations, I received MFI I and MFI 2 which he had given to his lawyers. I obtained the documents from his lawyer. The amount in question is <-/shs.> 21,000/=. One was dated 26.4.90 saying it is a confirmation of receipt of <-/shs.> 11,000/= On MFI 2 dated 4.5.90 the wordings were I confirm having received Kshs. 10,000/= being payment of the matatus. I stated the total is <-/shs.> 21,000/=. Both were signed by <name/> and rubber stamp of <-/proximate> Insurance.
I went to <-/proximate> Insurance and I checked sales ledger for January 1990. The register is marked MFI 7.
According to the entries in May and April there was no record telling whether Mr. <name/> was their client. Mr. <name/> had confirmed to me that when he was dealing with <name/> he had opened a file. We could not trace the file.
On 26th of the same month I went to look for the suspect at Eastleigh; I was accompanied by late Inspector <name/>. We did not get the accused. The following day we agreed with <name/> that we meet at Eastleigh and he was to come with a car.
I went to Eastleigh but Inspector never turned up due to transport <-_problem><+_problems>. I went to the accused's house and I introduced myself and I asked the accused if he knew someone by the name <name/>. I told him to accompany me to CID <-/Headquarters> where I arrested the accused.
The accused is present in court (identified). While at C.I.D <-/Headquarters> I told accused to give me his writing specimens (marked MFI 3-4).
While accompanied by Inspector <name/>, we went to accused's house and searched. We found MFI 5 which are the non-writing standard writing. I then caused accused to be charged and was brought to court the following day.
I wish to produce all these as exhibits (Marked Exhibit 1-7).
Cross-examined by Accused
The matter was reported by financial manager who was given instructions by <-/Managing Director>.
The financial manager only reported the matter. That is why I saw <name/>.
I do not know when register was put to use. I was made to understand the records of a client one mentioned. I was conversant with register kept. I do not know if it is <-/upto> date.
As I understand you had left before this matter came up. I do not know when the documents were recovered. I am not aware documents were removed. I am not aware who recovered the <-_>the<-/> proposals.
<-/There> were not in the office. You were called from your house but you did not turn up.
It is not true that I am telling the court things I was told. I told you when I came to your house to accompany me to C.I.D Headquarters.
The non-handwritten standard documents were removed from your house.
The accused duly sworn states
My name is <name/>. I am not working. I live at Eastleigh section II Nairobi. I <-/jointed> <-/proximate> Insurance <-/brokers> on 8.12.88 as senior accounts executive. My responsibilities included licensing with <-/Insurance> cause for policy <-/implimentation> providing ..... to clients.
I joined company at request of <-/Managing Director> on or before 26.4.90 a Mr. <name/> of Concord Insurance told me about a <-/lient> by the name <name/> who could not raise his full premium of his two matatus.
After <-/dispending> the pool the <-/Insurance> cause had option of fixing their own premiums for P.S.V Mvs and as such Mr. <name/> would not continue <-/Insuring> with concord because premiums had increased on 26.4.90 I was informed by receptionist that there was client. I came out and I was given a note by Mr. <name/> from Mr. <name/>. We moved into my office. Mr. <name/> told me what his problem was and since he had briefed me I went ahead and asked him to complete a proposal form which would be the basis of the <-/Insurance> contract.
He told me that he had only Kshs. 11,000/= in cash. The total amount to be paid for insuring both motor vehicles was <-/shs.> 43,000/=. He had done shopping and these were best rates.
After discussing I filled proposal form. The complainant went through the forms and he signed.
After that I gave him 14 days cover note. <-/Themoney> was acknowledged by completing slip.
This was because as was well known to him PSV <-/Premiums> are <-/payale> directly to <-/Insurance> company and a broker would only get commission.
In providing compl. slip I would give client confidence that the money was in proper hands since the money was not receivable to us.
Mr. <name/> was to come with before <-/expirey> of the 14 days. He came prior to <-/expirly> of cover note and there I was a bit busy with <-/Managing Director>. So he passed a word for some time when I came out briefly I was told he was there he gave me <-/shs.> 10,000/= at the reception. I took a compl. from the receptionists and I acknowledged and he was to come back the next day or after two days. He was to come with more money. 
S1BCE04K
P.W. I Moslem Adult Sworn in English States
P.W. 3 Xtian Adult Sworn in English States
I am No <number/> P.C. <name/> attached to J.K.I.A. Police Station. On 12.7.92 I recall was on duty as airline stand by that night around 8.30 p.m. we were tipped that a <-/immgration> officer was demanding money from the accused. On hearing this I and P.C. <name/> and P.C. <name/> proceeded to unit 2 There I saw a man and the passenger going towards international arrivals. I went to <-/internationa> <-/arrival> while the other two followed the officer and the person. By then I <-_know><+_knew> who the <-/Immgration> officer was. He is that person over there accused identified. I knew him previously as an <-/Immgration> officer at the airport.
I caught up with my <-/colleaques> at the <-/inter> arrivals. The passenger and the accused took a taxi they went up to unit 3. We caught up tith them.
At Unit 3 we told them to identify themselves. <-/they> did so. At unit 3 the two accused and the male <-/passenge> picked up a lady. She was standing on the pavement. The accused was at the back with the male passenger. The lady went into the front seat.
The taxi was Reg. KAA 540 C Passenger produced passports.
These shown to me were the passports they produced MFI 4 & 1
This MFI 1 belonged to the male passenger <-_Its><+_It's> No <number/> <name/> national.
This is the passport of the lady No 04014/NO <name/> a Burundi <-/National>. At this time the male passenger told us that the accused was <-/damanding> U$ 200 from him that he had offered 100 but accused had refused they were therefore going to town to get more money.
On hearing this I arrested the <-/Immgration> officer and went to the police station. I searched the <-/Immgration> officer I found on him an <-/Immgration> rubber stamp. This is the one <-_Its><+_It's> serial No. 148 for the <-/Immgration> Dept MFI 7
The rubber stamp was in his coat pocket. On the accused I <-/aslo> recovered some <-_document><+_documents> and Kshs. I asked accused the total amount <-/a> Kenya Shilling. He told me it was 10000/= I did not count the money. Accused was placed in the cells by P.C. <name/> the cells sentry. The male passenger showed me the U$ 100 dollars he wanted to give the accused. MFI 6
I produce rubber stamp as an exhibit in this case.
<name/>
Cross examined by <name/>
At 8.30 at the time I was tipped I was at inter. arrivals. It was an informal who tipped us. Inter. arrivals is 100 <-/miles> from unit 2.
I was tipped I went to unit 2. I saw accused and the passenger in deep conversation They appeared to have a <-/mis understanding>. They boarded a taxi 3 people accused complainant and driver.
They then drove to unit 3. We followed. On arrival found them picking a lady. From <-/inter> arrivals to unit 3 is 50 metres. He took us 3 minutes to get to unit 3.
When I caught up with them they were picking up the lady. We ordered them out after they had picked up the lady.
<-_Its><+_It's> not true the complainant and the accused had already alighted from the taxi when I was arresting them.
>From unit 2 to 3 is 30 metres. It went round to unit 1 2 and 3 we just took the short cut. The taxi arrived before us. I saw it as it arrived. I saw the lady being picked up when we were still about 50 metres. It should be about 30 metres away. We continued walking towards the taxi.
It is not true that I am lying. The complainant gave me the passports The wife lady passenger gave me her passport. The male passenger also gave me his <-/passenger>. I did not take the passports from the accused. I did not interview the accused. I took him to the station. The accused did not tell me that complainant was under arrest. It is not true I wanted to release the passenger and arrest only accused. I am the one who stopped the taxi driving off. I ordered them out. I entered the taxi and drove to the police station.
At unit 3 the complainant told us that accused was demanding U$ 200 from him. It is not true I took P.W. I aside after accused told me he was under arrest and that whatever we discussed nobody heard.
At the station I searched the accused on him I found an <-/Immgration> stamp it was hidden it was just in the pocket. They are not allowed to walk with the stamps. I am sure of this. I recovered money from accused and some <-_document><+_documents> I did not check them. I took <-_accused><+_accused's> movement pass. It is at the police station. I did not hear what was discussed. <-/appeared> to have disagreed. If <-/i> had tried to listen onto their conversation they would have noticed I was a police officer.
I recorded statement on 14.7.92. I have not told the court all that I recorded in my statement.
The taxi was about to take off. This is not in my statement. I arrested accused when the lady was inside the taxi not while she was out.
<-/Complaint> gave me their passports. They were not with the accused. This is my statement. I recorded it myself. I wish to produce it in court. D EXH 1.
Accused had his airport movement pass. I saw his name out. I asked him if he was <name/>. I did not ask him his name.
P.W. 4 Xtain Adult Sworn in English States.
I am No <number/> P.C. <name/> of JKIA Police.
On 12.7.92 I was on duty at the airport crime standby. Received a tip at 9 p.m. I was at arrivals. I went to behind aerodrome <-/secrity> office. There I saw two men and a lady. This accused was one of the men accused identified I had seen him around the <-/air port> before. I heard them arguing. The men were arguing. The lady was a little aside from the two men. I asked them what they were arguing about. They pushed the trolley to unit 3 they had a trolley with some pieces of luggage. I followed them towards unit 3. The two men then left the lady behind with the luggage. They went towards unit 2 then to <-/unti> 1.
I followed them came to the car park. I met P.C. <name/> and P.C. <name/> the <-_commandants><+_commandant's> car park is near unit 3 <-_Its><+_It's> in between unit 3 & 2 
I told the two what was happening we followed the two man. They went to towards unit 1. Before getting to unit 1 P.C. <name/> came to unit 3. I and P.C. <name/> followed the two men.
We went to unit 1. The two men entered a taxi from the taxi rink. I saw them as they boarded the taxi. It was Reg. NO. <number/>.
I went towards <-/inter> arrivals. The taxi moved to unit 3 towards the lady at unit 3 the lady joined the two men. We arrived after taxi had already arrived. We stopped the taxi all 3 were inside two men were in the back seat. <-/lady> in the front seat P.C. <name/> was also <-/three>.
We asked the accused and complainant to come out. They came out. The complainant said accused was demanding U$ 200 from him. This was so that he could stamp his passport. Complainant handed over to <name/> U$ 100 that he <-/daid> accused had refused to take. This is the U$ 100 Exh. 6 He also gave P.C. <name/> his passport. This is the same passport we took them to the airport police.
At the police station statement were taken from the complainant. The accused was searched by P.C. <name/> at the police station. I was not there then I do not know what was recovered from accused.
I had seen accused around the airport prior to this day.
<name/>
Cross examined by <name/>
I was alone when I was tipped. I went behind the aerodromes and went to unit 3. I met the men and lady behind the aerodromes security <-/Office> this was before they went to <-/Unit> 3.
I did not <-/adually> enquire what they were doing. I wanted to enquire but they moved away. The truth is that I did not enquire. I was about to enquire when they moved off.
They were taking behind the aerodromes office. They were having an argument. The complainant took money from his pocket and separated. They moved off. I followed them to <-/Unit> 3. I was about 10 metres behind them. I wanted to know why complainant was <-/separation> his money. I did not stop them.
They went to <-/Unit> 3 then left lady at unit 3 they went to unit 2. I had now been joined by P.C. <name/> I met P.C. <name/> at unit 3. This was when the taxi had just stopped at unit 3. We went to <-/Unit> 1 at unit 1 the accused took a taxi P.C. <name/> was not with us then.
I met the two officers at the commandant's car park. This was the 1st time continued followed the two I told them we follow accused but <name/> went <-/bact> to unit 3. where the lady had been left.
Rushed to unit 3. Unit 3 is about 30 metres from the taxi rink. We went via short cut. Taxi arrived first I saw it arrive we walked to unit. Taxi arrived we were about less than 5 metres, P.C. <name/> was and <name/> arrived first.
They came out of the taxi. They loaded the luggage. Lady entered. I am not lying when the taxi was being loaded we were a distance away. They were about to take off after loading that we stopped them.
The accused and complainant were not just coming out of the taxi when we arrested them they had arrived, loaded and were about to take off when we arrested him. <-_Complained><+_Complainant> said accused wanted US 200/= so that he could stamp his <-/pass port>. Accused was there when complainant said so.
The accused was very rude and aggressive. He refused to talk to us. He never told us that the complainant was under <-_arrested><+_arrest>. He talked to us the police station.
Accused never told me he had arrested the complainant.
We are not the ones who forced accused and complainant into the taxi and to the <-/Police Station>.
It is not true I wanted to release the complainant despite accused having told me that we were under arrest.
Recorded statement on what I have told the court this is my statement. I sign it. I was not lying when I said the taxi was about to leave. When he arrested them. I produce my statement into court D. Exh. 2.
<name/>
Re-examination
Accused never told me he had arrested complainant when <-/immgration> officers arrest passenger they inform the police duty officer so that the arrestee can be taken to the police station I was on crime standby. We had not received any <-/inform> that there was <-/any body> under arrest.
In relation to the police station unit 3 is nearer police station. I first saw accused and complainant near unit 1 which is further from the police station. 
S1BCE05K
P.W. I <name/> XTIAN S/S IN ENGLISH
I stay in Eastleigh section 1. I work at the Kenya <-/polytechnic> as a clerk. I know <name/> he used to be my boyfriend. We were friends between July, 1990 to September, 1991.
>From September, 1991 to July, 1992 I cannot recall how often we met. <name/> is here (identify accused). We intended to get married. We had made arrangements towards marriage. We went to the extent of having a pre-wedding in September, 1991 at Eastleigh community centre. This is a copy of the pre-wedding card. It was on 30.8.91 at Eastleigh <-/Community> centre. The pre-wedding took place Mfl 1. We were not staying together then. I was living in Eastleigh and the accused in Jericho. We differed in September, 1991 and we did not meet again until July, 1992. On 4.7.92 at 8.00 a.m. I was in my house when the accused came. I was alone in my house. I had just woken up. The door to my house was open. I was seated in bed. He pushed the door open and entered. He started pushing me towards the bed. I started screaming. He blocked my mouth. He pushed me towards the bed. My night dress was open in front. He started raping me. I started screaming again and some of my neighbours came.
They came into the house. Since they knew <name/> they just left without helping me. Since I was struggling I <-/couldnt> tell which neighbour came first. I was struggling and I got scratches on my thighs. The accused was also covering my mouth with a bed sheet. After he had raped me he walked out of my house. I went to Pangani police station where I reported the matter at 1.00 p.m. I was escorted by <name/> one of my neighbours. The police told me that they had no doctors on 4th. I was told to go back on 6th. On 6th I went to the police station. I was given a P3 form and a police officer to escort me to police <-/Doctor>. The doctor examined me and took some samples. I had a panty and a night dress when the incidence occured. <name/> removed my panty after struggling with me for <-/sometime>. I took it to the police. This is the panty I had that day of the incidence Mfl.2. I gave it to the police on 6th when I was taken to the doctor. I was injured. I had injuries on the thighs. My legs also ached. I saw <name/> again at the police station. Between October, 1991 and July, 1992 the accused never came to my house. I knew house of the accused at Jericho when we were still friends.
xxd by counsel: I have lived at my present residence for 4 years. During the time we were friends with the accused. I was living in that place. <name/> knew the accused. Yes she was living in same plot as me. She was also present at our pre-wedding. K.shs. 33,500/- <-_was><+_were> raised during our pre-wedding. Yes, <-/prewedding> was on 30.8.91. Yes, our friendship ended around <-/september>, 1991. Yes, it was a few weeks after the pre-wedding. When our friendship broke <name/> took all the pre-wedding money. One week after the <-/prewedding> <name/> started beating me and <-_thats><+_that's> how our friendship broke. I did not get any coin, out of the money raised. Our parents had met prior to the pre-wedding to arrange the wedding. I came from Machakos.
Parents of the accused had paid part of the dowry to my parents. That dowry was returned sometimes in June, 1992. I did not claim any of the <-/prewedding> money. Yes, accused came at 8.00 a.m. on 4.7.92. I had gone out of my house to the toilets and gone back to the house. Yes, it was a <-/saturday> morning. Yes, accused knocked and pushed the door in. He did not greet me. He was dressed in a coat, <-/trouser> and shirt. He did not speak to me at all. Yes, I was shocked. I did not speak to him. He immediately started pushing me towards the bed. Yes, I was seated. I was seated at the edge of the bed. He started pushing me to the middle of the bed. My feelings towards him were hostile since we had broken our friendship. Even if I had met him in the streets I <-/couldnt> have greeted him. I struggled with the accused for about 30 minutes. I screamed and in between the <-/screems> he covered my mouth. I live in a plot. There are six rooms each for individual families. There are 6 rooms but some people there occupy two houses. <name/> and <name/> came. Both are married women. <name/> also came. I saw them through the passia. The passia was pushed up so I could see them. They came as we struggled with the accused. I saw <name/>, <name/> and <name/>. I have not stated so in my statement. Yes, this is the statement I wrote with the police. I both heard <name/> calling me and also saw her. My statement says I heard <name/> calling me. The names of <name/> and <name/> are not included in my statement. The door was not locked, at that time. I <-/screemed> seeking help. Yes, I was <-/screeming> as a person in agony. Yes, I was <-/maing> a loud noise. The three ladies came inside the house. Yes, I am certain of that. <name/>, <name/> and <name/> came in but at different times. Since they knew the accused as my fried they did nothing. They did not know that the friendship had broken.
Each of them came once. I cannot recall who came first. I was confused so I do not know what they did. I was on the bed when each came. I was struggling with the accused. He was blocking my mouth but not <-/continously>. The one who came first when she saw me struggling with the accused <-_they><+_she> left. They found the accused lying on me. They did not do anything. They did not even call others to see or to help. Prior to that I had never had any cause to scream when the accused was in the house. Yes, it was a new phenomenon. The accused pulled down his trousers. I cannot remember if accused had removed my pants when the 3 ladies came in. None of the 3 ladies asked us what we were <-/upto>. I do not know if I scratched the accused anywhere. I did not hit him anywhere. My legs were <-/acking> after that. I had scratches on the thighs. My nightie was not torn. My <-_pantie><+_panties> <-_was><+_were> not torn. After this the accused dressed up and walked away. He did not run. I remained in the house. I did not scream when he left. Later <name/> came to question me about the incidence. I narrated to her what had happened. I was examined 2 days after the event. Yes, <-_its><+_it's> true I surrendered the dress. Yes, I was aware that the <-_accused><+_accused's> parents were meeting mine for the refund of the dowry. They still meet on the 23rd. Yes, the dowry was refunded. The rape matter was not raised during the incidence. The accused had not been apprehended by 23.7.92. Yes, I know his home. He comes from Kangundo. Yes, I told police where the accused comes from. <-_Its><+_It's> not true the case is a hit back for the broken wedding arrangement. <-_Its><+_It's> not true I was bitter with the accused or that I am framing him. <-_Its><+_It's> not true I received 1,500/- from the accused that morning. I took time to go and report because I wanted to take breakfast first.
Rxd: We raised 45,000/- at the pre-wedding at Eastleigh C. Centre I never complained about the money. If I am bitter with the accused it is because of raping me.
The accused did not bring any money to me on 4.7.92. Yes, his parents had paid dowry to my parents. I was still not married to him. Witness released.
ACCUSED XTIAN S/S IN ENGLISH
<-/MY> names are <name/>. I am charged with <-/RAPE> something I have never done. I am still denying the charge. I know the complainant in this case <name/>, she used to be my girlfriend in 1990 and 1991. We are no longer friends. I am already married now. I ceased to be complainant's friend in September, 1991. I broke my relationship with the complainant when I realised that she was a <-/drankard> and was also smoking. We had been friends for 1 year and 8 months.
On 4.7.92 I arrived from Mombasa where I had gone for a business trip. I arrived early in the morning. I went to <-_complainants><+_complainant's> house. I had given her father dowry of 28 goats and I wanted them to be refunded. I went to <-_complainants><+_complainant's> house that morning because the complainant had told her father that I owed her 1,500/-. I went there to pay her the money. I paid her the money. She then escorted me to my car which was parked near a bar. I stayed in her house between 5 to 10 minutes. Her house is in Mathare along <-/juja road> near St. Teresa. The complainant voluntarily escorted me to my vehicle, which was 200 metres from her house. I found the complainant's house locked and I had to knock for her to open. <-/Infact> as I stood waiting I spoke to a neighbour of hers. The complainant was wearing a night dress but on seeing me she wore a lesso. Her house is one roomed. She has stools for chairs. The complainant welcomed me into her house and offered to make tea for me which I declined as I wanted to go home and rest. I was arrested on 23rd August, 1992, at Kangundo. I mean I was found at Kangundo by police officer on 21st August, and I reported to Pangani police station on 23rd August. No blood was taken from me.
xxs by pros: I live in Kangundo. During that time I was living in Kangundo. <name/> works in a hotel. When we were friends I used to live in Jericho. Yes, I used to visit her often. We parted in 1991 <-/september>. We were not friends but we used to meet and we tried to reconcile. I married August, 1992. The pre-wedding between me and complainant was on 30.8.91 at Eastleigh social hall. Yes, we parted a month later. Between 1990 and 1991 I could see signs of her smoking but on questioning her she always denied. She visited me after the pre-wedding and I found cigarettes in her hand-bag. I even went and told her father. Between September, 1991 and July, 1992 we were not meeting. She had given me the money in April, 1991. I gave the money back to her after a year. I was hoping we would reconcile <-_thats><+_that's> why I never paid her. We used to meet between September, 1991 and July, 1992 but briefly. Yes, we used to discuss about the money but I <-/post phoned> the payment. I would say she had no need for the money, she just wanted us to reconcile. Her father told me about the money through elders whom I had sent to get back my dowry. The father told them to tell me to repay <-_complainants><+_complainant's> money first. I had sent the elders often between November, 1991 and July, 1991. The goats paid as dowry is not valued in monetary terms traditionally. The value of goats was more than 1,500/-. Yes, I was claiming more from them than they were from me. Since parting in September, 1991 to <-/july>, 1992 we had no serious disagreements between us. I came to know <name/> here in court. When I visited <-_complainants><+_complainant's> house I never even saw <name/> there. I <-/dont> know her at all. I would say she had been told to come here and say what she did. I did not know names of <-_complainants><+_complainant's> neighbours but I knew them facially. I would say that the complainant made this complaint because she learnt that I was planning to marry another woman. Her house, <-_complainants><+_complainant's>, had a bed, cupboard and stools. 
S1BCE06K
Trial within a trial:
PW5 - Adult male sworn states
My name is Inspector <name/> from C.I.D. divisional. On 24th December 1990 the accused <name/> was brought to me by Corporal <name/> for charge and cautionary statement as per the charge sheet. I read charge to him I asked him if he understood the charge. He said yes. We were communicating in English language I cautioned him that he was not obliged to say anything. I asked him if he understood the charge caution he said yes. He then signed. The accused signed that he understood charge and caution. I <-/counter signed>. Thereafter the accused volunteered to make a statement which he wrote himself in English and signed it. Thereafter I made a certificate that statement was taken voluntarily and I <-/counter signed> it. The 2nd accused person was the 1st brought to me for charge and cautionary. I cannot identify <name/>.
<name/>
XXd by Counsel
I was alone when taking statement from <name/>. I did not dictate to 2nd accused person. He wrote statement in his own hands and own words I have been inspector for 7 years. I did not think it wrong to take charge and cautionary from both the <-_accuseds><+_accused>. I did not dictate to both accused persons what to write.
<name/>
PROS: No Re-exam:
<name/>
Counsel: I was submitting we proceed with trial within a trial for one accused before we proceed with the next accused and then Court can make a ruling. I object that we should complete with one accused person before we go to the next accused person.
PROS: The Counsel is one representing the two accused persons. The objection is one. It is not prejudicial to the accused.
<name/>
PROS: I am not ready to close trial within a trial for the second accused person as a witness was mentioned by PW5. I wish for an adjournment for the other 2 police officers.
Ct: Case adjourned - re-allocation Court 1 on 11/3/92.
PW5 - Adult male sworn states:
I am No. 31687 P.C. <name/> attached to Div. C.I. Railways police station. I was second <-/corp. investigator> to Kemboi. I know <name/> who had been accused of stealing wires from Kenya Railways.
On 24/12/90 at 3.00 p.m. I was told by <-/corp.> <name/> to take the accused to <-/inspector> <name/> for cautionary. I took 2nd accused to the office of <-/inspector> <name/> Inspector <name/> had copy of charge sheet in his office and left accused (2nd) inside office of <-/inspector> <name/>. Later I removed 2nd accused from the office of <-/insp>. <name/>. 2nd accused is there identified to Court as 2nd accused)
<name/>
XXd by Accused:
I cannot remember how long accused had been at police station. I assisted <-/corp.> <name/> in investigations. When I took accused to office of Insp. <name/> they had been in our office, in the morning for <-/finger prints> we had not been beating the accused person.
I stayed in Insp. office for 5 minutes and I was arranging the statement forms for Insp. <name/> during these 5 minutes. I briefed the Insp. about the case against A2. Statement was not taken in my presence. I told the Inspector place where accused were arrested. I did not brief the <-/insp.> about the circumstances of the case.
<name/>
PROS: No re-exam;
<name/>
Pros: That is close of the pros. case in respect of trial within a trial for the A2. person.
<name/>
Court: At the close of the trial within a trial the 2nd accused is put on defence.
<name/>
S 211 C.P.C. explained to the accused person and complied with.
<name/>
Accused 2: I make an unsworn defence and have no witness to call.
<name/>
D.W.2 - <name/>. I live at Makongeni. On 25. I was taken to <-/Railways> police for interrogation. During our interrogation we were beaten up by officers who have just given evidence <name/> and <name/> beat me up and said I should agree. I was <-/continuosly> beaten until I agreed that I had been found with the wires. That is all.
<name/>
Counsel: That is the close of the defence case.
<name/>
Ruling: 13/5/92 on trial within trial in respect of Accused 2.
Ct: Ruling: It was not proper for same police officer to take charge and cautionary statement from both <-_accuseds><+_accused> but statement admitted as 2nd accused was voluntarily taken from 2nd shown he was beaten up before statement was taken as no complaint was made in Court when he was first produced.
<name/>
P.W. sworn INSP. <name/> C.I.D. continues to give evidence in Court. This is the statement I wish to produce it as exhibit) I obtained from the 2nd accused person. On 24/12/90 at 3.45 p.m. I charged and cautioned <name/>. I read the charge to the accused after he understood caution after I cautioned him. He volunteered to write the statement himself after he wrote the statement I read it over to him and asked him if he had alterations to make. He said he had none to make. I then prepared the certificate that statement was made voluntarily. I cannot now remember the person in respect of whom I took the statement. This is statement taken from accused 1.
<name/>
Counsel: I object at this stage to the production of the statement as it was taken by the same police officer.
<name/>
Ct: Order Trial within a trial be held.
P.W. - Adult sworn states: I am Insp. <name/> from C.I.D. Nairobi On 24/12/90 at 3.45 p.m. the accused <name/> was brought to me by Corp. <name/> for charge and cautionary statement to be taken. The accused looked normal and I charged him as per charge sheet. After he understood charge he <-/singed> for it and volunteered to make his own statement in his own handwriting. After so doing I signed and he <-/counter-signed> I then made a certificate that statement was taken voluntarily with no threats or inducement he signed the certificate and I also signed. 1st accused was brought to me but I cannot remember him now. When he was brought to me I was alone in my office. I cautioned 1st accused separately from 2nd accused. When 1st accused was brought to me I think 2nd accused was in the general office. I did not tell 2nd a accused person what the 1st accused person had told me. The 2nd accused was brought to my office first.
<name/>
XXd by Counsel
I had taken statement of <-/Co-Accused> of A1 I did not read statement of Accused 2 to A1. 2nd wrote
After accused wrote the statement I read it over to him. I was not told circumstances of case by police officer who brought A1. I did not read the statement of A2 to A1. When accused wrote their statements it did not matter they were word for word. I did not force accused make statement I did not beat the accused person. I also did not <-/dectate> to them what to write in their statements.
<name/>
PROS: No re-exam.
<name/>
PROS: I intend to call <-/corp.> <name/> who is presently at Molo in clash area and not known when he will be through.
Ct: Case adjourned - Re-allocation Court 1 on 14/5/92.
PW - Adult male sworn states:
No 35308 <-/Corporat> <name/> - I am attached to Kenya Railways divisional C.I.D. police on 24/12/90 at 3.45 p.m. I was at div. C.I.D. Kenya Railways 2 suspects were in our office I took one of suspects to office of <name/>. The one I took is the 1st accused person (identified) I had plain statement forms and copy of charge sheet to <-/insp.> <name/> who was alone in his room. The two suspects had been earlier on alone in DC room. Before I took 1st accused to office of <name/> I did not threaten him or intimidate him. When I took 1st accused to office of Insp. <name/> Insp <name/> was alone. I left him immediately after I took him to office. After 15 minutes Insp. <name/> called me to take accused out of his office. Accused did not complain to me. He was in normal condition. That is person I took to <-/insp.> <name/> (identified as accused).
<name/>
XXd by Counsel for A1
At police station 3 inspectors are attached but at that time only Insp. <name/> was present. I was not aware that 30 minutes before Insp. <name/> had taken charge and cautionary statement from A2. We had 2 suspects. I was alone in the general office. Suspects were in another room. Our office has many rooms. The suspects were <-/sitted> alone in a room. I took 1st suspect to make statement I do not know who took other suspect to
Insp. <name/>.
Accused persons were in the same room I cannot recall whether they had been in same room from morning. Our interrogation did not include beatings. I did not remove <-_accuseds><+_accused> from the cells. <-_Accuseds><+_Accused> were waiting in room for Insp. <name/>. I cannot tell how long <-_accuseds><+_accused> had stayed in the room. When I left at 1.00 p.m. <-_accuseds><+_accused> were in room when I came back from lunch at 2.30 p.m. I found <-_accuseds><+_accused> in room. I took A1 to Insp. <name/> at about 2.30 p.m. I did not beat accused 1.
<name/>
Re-exam: We put the 2 suspects in a room which is not all but just an office. Before I went for lunch I left the suspects in the room.
<name/>
PROS: I have no other witness to call. Close of <-/triall> within a trial for A1.
<name/>
Counsel: I have no submissions to make at this stage.
Ruling: At close of trial within a trial for accused 1 he has case to answer and is put on his defence.
<name/>
S 211 C.P.C. explained to accused 1 and complied with.
<name/>
Accused: I give an unsworn defence and have no witnesses to call.
<name/>
DW - <name/>:
I work for Kenya <-/railways>. On 24/12/90 I was removed from police cells at 8.00 a.m. and taken to div. C.I.D. <-/Office> where I was placed in the general office. We were beaten until 3.00 p.m. when Corporal <name/> took statements which he took to <-/insp.> <name/> just signed the statement. I did not write the statement at all. Statement was read over to me. But it was not taken from me. Insp. <name/> <-/dicated> the statement which I signed. I was returned to the general office and later returned to the police cells at 5.00 p.m. That is all.
<name/>
Submissions by counsel.
Doubt as to whether the statements were voluntary. There were cells which were available but <-_accuseds><+_accused> were detained in general office which was in use. If there were 3 inspectors why did only one <-/Insp.> take statements In other trial within - a trial. It was held that insp. <-/Knew> circumstances of case. In other trial within a trial, <-_accuseds><+_accused> were kept in office - purposes of beating. I urge that the other insp. had taken statements of accused 2 just minutes before which was highly prejudicial.
<name/>
Ct: Room at 2.30 p.m.
Later:
Ruling: Irregular for same officer to take charge and cautionary statement from both accused but not prejudicial so statement can be admitted.
<name/>
PROS: Officer who took charge and cautionary statement from accused 1 was not bonded - I request.
<name/>
Ct: Case to continue on 29th June, 1992.
Ramogo advocate for them.
PW5 - Adult male sworn states: I am <-/insp.> <name/> from C.I.D. Railways Nairobi. On 24/12/90 the accused <name/> was brought to me by Corporal <name/> for charge and cautionary statement. I wish to produce statement as exhibit (Exh. 5). I cannot identify <name/> now.
<name/>
XXd by Counsel:
I took statements from both <-_accuseds><+_accused> - statements were taken on same day but at different times.
PROS: No rexamination
Close of prosecution case.
<name/>
Submissions:
2 statements from both <-_accuseds><+_accused> have been repudiated - Independent <-/corroborrative> evidence is required. There is none Evidence of PW1 who could not identify persons cutting wires from railway lines as he was 30 metres away. He later met 2 men carrying 2 bags but could not identify them again. He <-/ruched> to police station and police officers came to station after 30 minutes. Station had many people present. Although many people were standing near bags its 2 <-_accuseds><+_accused> who were arrested. Question is are the 2 accused persons who had possession of bags. No I urge Court to acquit both the <-_accuseds><+_accused> S. 210 C.P.C.
S1BCE07K
P. W. 7 CONTINUES:
This is the statement which I now produce as an exhibit. (8)
In the course of my investigations on 30/8/90, I went to the house of 3rd accused at Mulango Kubwa in Mathare. We searched this house but we did not recover anything. Since 3rd accused had implicated 2nd accused; 3rd accused led us to the house of 2nd accused which was about 4th away. The house was locked and we did not go in. 3rd accused also said that 2nd accused had bought household goods and since 2nd accused was at large we returned to the police station.
On 13/9/90 we got information that 2nd accused hat a mention at law courts. P.C. <name/> and another officer came to law court and arrested the 2nd accused and bought to the police station. He was searched in my presence and this bunch of keys <-/mFI> 9 was recovered from him. 2nd accused denied any involvement in this matter. He alleged he stayed in Kitui we went to his house at Mlango Kubwa and opened the padlock with one of these keys. And another key opened a newly bought wardrobe. Inside were other <-/neww> items like <-/untensils> thermos and a pair of shoes. We collected all items except for the wardrobe which <-/wwas> too big. These are the utensils MFI 9 6 cups 2 <-/soucers> and 4 glasses. Thermos MFI 10 pair of <-/shows> MFI II and 4 plates 2 one bowl MFI 12. We left for a few minutes and when I returned to the house we could not get the wardrobe. We took 2nd accused and utensils to the police station. I now wish to produce these and the workticket to court as exhibits. (produced). I also took these police uniform from first accused P.C. <name/> and I now wish to produce them in court as exhibits (produced).
This pair of bed <-/sheet> was recovered from 3rd accused in Kitui and I now wish to produce it in court as an exhibit (<-/Produced>). I had never seen any of the 3 accuseds before.
Cross-examined by Mr. <name/>:
I went to South C <-/Central> <-/worksho> and I found the m/v at South B - <-/Police> lines. I was instructed by the D.C.IO Parklands. Yes, I found the m/v partially burnt <-/infront>.
Ref: photographs - pionted I had never seen it before I did not ask why it was burnt. <name/> etc said they had seen such a m/v. From the house of first accused we found nothing. The job ticket implicates first accused. The m/v had been driven by first accused on that day and time and he was postively identified. The m/v a GK was mentioned in the statement. I was not present when the parade wad <-/donducted>.
Cross-examined by 2nd accused:
<-/THese> <-/utensiles> were recorded from your house and you were wearing these shoes on that day. Money and <-/Juwelleries> were stolen. You had one 1,000/= with you. It had taken long and we did not know if it was your money or not. The carpenter had not made a report. You were alleged to have used a ladder to scale the wall <-/ang> get inside into the compound of PW I one of you was alleged to have carried a gun.
Cross-examined by 3rd accused:
Yes you implicated 2nd accused. We went with you to your house but I did ask you for people who stay in that plot and you implicated 2nd accused.
P. W. 8 A MALE ADULT SWORN AND STATES:
I am No. 26236 IP <name/> attached to Parklands police station. On 30/8/90 at about 11.00 a.m. I was at the police station when I was asked by the D.C.I.O. <-/PARKlands> SP <name/> to conduct an I/D parade. The parade was done in a yard next to the OGS office. The suspect was first <-/>first accused - P.C <name/>. I informed him of my intention of holding and I/D parade and he had no objections.
Ref. Column (c) 2 witnesses viz <name/> and <name/> were to identify him. There were 8 <-/memembers> of the parade. - all men of policemen in full police subordinate uniform. The witnesses were in police cells. The first accused chose to stand between positions 5 and 6 and 3 and 4 and he was identified. He said he was satisfied with the parade. I signed the parade form and first accused also signed. I abided by rules on first page. I now wish to produce it to court as an exhibit (produced) I performed another I/D parade and the suspect was 2nd accused - <name/>. It is dated 17/9/90 I followed the rules as in first case. He was identified by 2 witnesses, viz <name/> and <name/>. There were 8 members on the parade. He chose to be between 7 and 8 and last position (9). He was identified and he was satisfied and he signed and I countersigned. I abided by rules and first page. I now produce it in court as an exhibit (produced). I also conducted a parade for <name/> on 16/9/90. There was one witness, <name/>. There were 8 members of the parade and the suspect stood between position <-/223> and he was identified. He was satisifed and he signed and I countersiged. I followed the rules on page 2. I now wish to produce it to court as an exhibit. (produced). In all the cases they were identified by being <-/torched> on the shoulder. All those suspects are the 3 accuseds.
Cross-examined by Mr. <name/>:
They were of a similar height to first accused. I told him that he had the right to have a friend or lawyer. The 2 witnesses were civilians. They were in police cells as suspects. I told them to check on the parade and see if they could see any suspects involved in this case. This was my ID parade. First accused was identified by the witness touching him as the first <-/insference>.
Cross-examined by 2nd accused:
I did not know from where the <-/identififying> witnesses had come from. I did not know how long they had stayed in the cells.
Cross-examined by 3rd accused:
Nil
Prosecutor:
4 witnesses were not bonded. Dr. <name/> who comes to court on Mondays and Tuesdays; the scenes of two and 2 others.
Mr. <name/>:
No objection
Court:
Last and final adjournment. Case <-/reffered> to court No. I on 7/6/91 for re-allocation and RIC
3 <-_accuseds><+_accused> present
Mr. <name/> for first accused present and states in <-/sumbisssions.>: The 3 <-_accuseds><+_accused> are jointly charged with the offence of <-/Robbery>. From the evidence of PW I the complainant she stated that she never saw any of the 3 <-_accuseds><+_accused> and further that whoever went to the house only threatened to use force but no force was used. PW 3 only saw a GK <-/M/V> which belongs to the police and never saw the thieves. PW 4 was at his kiosk and was only told that theft took place in the neighbourhood. <name/> alleged that the m/v in question was being driven by first accused who is a policeman and nothing was ever <-/takn> <-/fromit> it. None <-/ofthe> witnesses who attended the ID <-/Parade> were either not called or were not at the scene of the crime. The prosecution has not established a prima facie case to warrant first accused being put on his defence and I urge the court to acquit him under section 210 of the CPC.
Prosecutor:
The prosecution <-/hasestahlished> a prima facie case. The evidence on record is <-/sufficent> to put the accused on their defence and they should be put on their <-_defences><+_defence>.
Defences:
a) First accused will make unsworn statement and states: 
My name is <-/Learned> <name/>. I stay at South B, police lines. I work as a P.C. driver on 30/8/90 I went on duty at <-/Central Workshop> at 8.a.m. The police took me to South B where I showed them my house. They identified themselves and wanted to carry out a search in my <-/hoose>. I told the OC in charge to be around and he came and he was there when the search was conducted. They then took me to Parklands police station where I was taken to the <-/cells.> and detained till IP.M. When IP <name/> came and asked me if I had gone to an Asian's place on 27th a Monday I explained to her that I did not go there as I was working on that day. I was then taken to an ID <-/Parade> where my ex-cellmates identified me. The police m/v is normally signed for <-/whereever> it leaves the premises for an errand. I was only going to hospital at Forces Memorial <-/hospital> to see my boss - Mr. <name/>. I frequently visited him in hospital. But none of my identifing witnesses testified as to what I had allegedly done. Even the complainant herself denied having seen nor known me. I do not know the 2nd and 3rd <-_accusess><+_accused>. No m/v entered her home. The <-_watchmen><+_watchman> only said that he saw a m/v pass.
No witnesses to call.
b) 2nd accused person has elected to make a sworn statement sworn and states:
My name is <name/>. I stay at Pangani. I work in my father's shop at Pangani. On 13/9/90 at about 10.a.m. at the High <-/court> two officers came and asked me to accompany them to Parklands police station. I went with them to Parklands police station where I was remanded on arrival. On 5th day a ID parade was held. 3 people were brought and they identified me, but I had been with them in the cells. Finally I was charged with these offences. No witnesses to call.
Cross-examined by prosecutor:
3 people identified me at Parklands police station. and all the 3 people had been with me in the cells. Even PW 2 a young Asian was in the cells but I do not know what offence he was being charged with. The Asian said he knew me in the cells. I did not tie her with a rope.
c) 3rd accused person has elected to make unsworn statement and states: My name is <name/>. I stay at Pangani. I used to work for the complainant. On 30th I went on duty as usual till 10.00 a.m. when I heard a noise of PW I as I was in <-/thek> kitchen. I met her PW I with 3 people who caught me as they had caught her and we were made to sit down and tied. They ransacked the house and left with one <-/brief case> and bag. They left telling us not to leave. The police came at 3 p.m. I told the police that I had no relative working with the police. I worked till 6 p.m. When I reported off on next day I worked till 6 p.m. On the 3rd day as I was working at about 3.30 p.m. 2 officers came and asked me if I knew the robbers and I <-/deneid>. They took me to the police station where I recorded statements. I was forced to sign statements. 2 men were brougth from the cells and it was alleged that I had been planning with them and I denied.
Finally I was brought to court and charged.
No witnesses to call.
Mr. <name/>:
The 3 <-_accuseds><+_accused> are charged with the offence of robbery. The evidence on record so far points to the innocence of <-_accuseds><+_accused>. PW I and PW 2 stated that they did not see first accused and yet the robbery took place at 10.00 a.m. during the day. PW 3 said he had seen a police <-/m.v> along the road and later heard that there was theft. But he never saw anybody himself; nor anybody <-/alighing> from the police m/v go to the house.
P.W. 4 in cross examination said he did not know those who told him there was a theft. She only produced a work ticket which says the car was supposed to be moving in Nairobi. First accused has given a <-/plainsible> explanation as to where he went. PW 8 who conducted an ID parade said that first accused was identified by 2 people who were never summoned to testify and they both feature <-/nowehere> in the proceedings. The evidence on record cannot assist the court in convicting first accused. 
S1BCE08K
P.W.1 - A male adult, sworn and states:-
I am No. 102580 Cpl. <name/> attached to 82 Airforce at Moi Airbase. On 26.7.87, at about 11 p.m. I was along Juja <-/road> with Senior Private <name/> and late Cpl. <name/>. We were coming from Kibigori bar and going to eat supper. Cpl. <name/> remained behind urinating as we proceeded on a bit. We were walking beside the road. We then heard a loud bang. I saw Cpl. <name/> had been knocked by a motor vehicle. He was knocked beside the road on the right as you <-_faces><+_face> town. The motor vehicle hit him and fled off. It was being driven at a very fast speed and we could not even see the registration number. We took a Dandora Matatu and took him to Moi <-/Air base> where he was treated. But he died. At the scene, there was no corner and the road was straight. There were traffic lights on the road. The deceased was not crossing the road. He wanted to urinate and we walked ahead of him. The motor vehicle was coming from Dandora to town. The motor vehicle was going to town. We were walking on the left as you go to town. When the driver hit the deceased, he did not brake; but drove off Later on, I heard that the motor vehicle went to Pangani Police station.
xx. by defence counsel: I work with 82 Airforce and the <-/deceased.was> also with the force. I was with Senior Sgt. <name/>. The deceased and myself we left the base in evening after between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. <name/> came <-/lateron>. I was not on duty. It was on Sunday. I and the deceased were not on duty. We <-/hednt> eaten at the base. We went to Kibigori bar and drank till the bar was closed. We drunk beer. <-_Kibigoris><+_Kibigori's> bar is on the same side as Moi Airbase. But we were going to take some chips <-/infront> of that bar, which is also on the left side of the road as you face the city centre. The deceased was on the right side of the road as you face town after he had been hit. But I did not see how he was hit. He was joining us at the fish and chips place. It was past 11 p.m. after the bar.
Re-examination: We left very many people in the bar when we left. We were not drunk but slightly tipsy. The deceased was not very drunk also but merely high.
P.W.2 - A male adult sworn and states:- My name is Senior Private <name/>. I am No. 104143, 82 Airforce. On 26.7.87 at 11 p.m. I was along Juja <-/road> with P.W.1 and the deceased. We had left Kibigori bar and were going to eat food ahead of that bar. I was <-/infront> and they were following me. I then heard a bang and when I looked back, I saw that the deceased had been hit by a motor vehicle which was driven off at a speed. We took him to hospital at the base and then to Memorial Hospital where he died.
XX. by Defence counsel: The accident took place when we were leaving the bar. I found them in the bar. It was on a Sunday. I joined them later at 10.30 p.m. But I <-/dod> not know what time P.w.1 and the deceased went to the bar. When we left the It was about 11 p.m. and I was no conscious of time. I had taken only a little beer. I was <-/infront> and I just heard a bang and looking back, I saw the deceased had been hit. I did not know how drunk he was.
Prosecutor: 4 witnesses were not bonded for various reasons. I ask for an adjournment.
Defence counsel: No objection.
Court: Case referred to court No. 1 on 28.4.90 for re-allocation and bond extended
PW.3 A male adult, sworn and states:-
My name is Major <name/>. I am currently working for Twiga Chemical Industries. On 3.7.89 at about 10 a.m. I was asked by officers from Pangani Police station to go to the city mortuary and identify the body of Cpl. <name/>. I knew him, he was my first cousin. He had been hit by a motor vehicle along Juja road on 26.7.87 at around 11.30 p.m.
He was buried at Tigania Meru.
xxe. by defence counsel: Nil
P.W.4 - A male adult, sworn and states:-
My name is <name/>: BSC. <-/Government> analyst. On 30.7.87 a bottle labelled Cpl. <name/> No. 103 was brought to the department by P.C. <name/>. Blood alchohol 163 mm. per 100 ml. of sample. This figure indicates a minimum intake of 4 half litre bottles of beer or 9 tots of whiskies. I now wish to produce my report in court as an exhibit. 1
xx by defence counsel: I <-/prpeared> this report. Only the <-/Doctor> who examined the accused could tell the capacity of drunkness
Prosecutor: Dr. <name/> was here in the morning; but hence left. The officer who took the sketch plan is on leave.
Court: Mention on 18.5.90 and bond extended.
P.W.5 - A male adult sworn and states:-
I am No. 13987 I.P. <name/> currently the O.C.S. of Tigania police station in Meru. Formerly I was attached to Pangani traffic in 1987. On 28.7.87 I was in the office at about 11.30 a.m. when the accused was brought to me and I took his statement under inquiry. At 3.20 p.m. he volunteered and took me to the scene of the accident where I took the road view. This is the one MFI. 1, it was along Juja road, and near Meru Rutuna bar and lodging. I could not find any skid marks however close to the pavement there was some glass fragments which could have come from a motor vehicle. It was on the left as one moves to the city <-/cnetre> and close to the pavement on the road. There was a bus stop on the opposite side. The width of the road was 24 ft. A fair plan was also made and I now wish to produce both in court as exhibits. (produced).
xx. by Mr. <name/>: It was not possible to determine the point of impact. At 3.20 p.m. during the day, two days after the accident, I drew the road view. I did not inquire if the street lights were working at night.
Prosecutor: The Doctor has not come.
Accused present
Mr. <name/> present
Prosecutor: I am still expecting the <-/Doctor>.
Court: Hearing when the <-/Doctor> comes today.
<name/>
P.W.6 - A male adult sworn and states:
Dr. <name/>, a police pathologist attached to city mortuary in Nairobi. On 30.7.87 at the city mortuary I performed a post mortem on the body of No. 10093 Cpl. <name/>. It was identified to me by Cpl. <name/> and <name/>. The body was that of a 26 year old male <-/african>.
Externally, right thigh bone was broken. A 2 cm. cut above right eye. Right side of head was bruised. Right side of skull was broken. Internally, there was bleeding over the right side of the brain. I formed the opinion that the cause of death was due to bleeding over <-/gith> side of the brain due to a broken skull consistent with a road traffic accident. A blood sample was submitted to government chemist. I then completed and signed a post mortem form which I now wish to produce as an exhibit (2). This is the report from <-/Government> analyst (3).
xx. by Mr. <name/>:- This is the report I received from the <-/Government> analyst. He had taken a minimum of 9 whiskies. It depends on capacity and tolerance on individual. This is likely to make one <-/typsy>. A drunk person can be a little unconscious. When drinking on an empty stomach, he might have been quite drunk.
Prosecutor: This is the close of the case. 
S1BCE09K
P.W.I NO.48871 P.C. <name/> SWORN STATES:-
I am attached to Pangani Police station. On 3/10/91 I reported on duty at 6.00 p.m. and was to work till morning.
We then went with other officers on duty at Eastleigh. We started with section 2. And near Mateso Bila Chuki Bar, we came, 2 people singing crossing the road. When we saw them the driver stopped the lorry and we arrested them for being drunk and disorderly.
While on the lorry they were singing and shouting that "Nyayo juu", serikali juu" and that we were arresting them because of the Ford meeting. At the police station, we charged them with the offences. While in cells they continued to bang on the doors. We left them in cells to await the O.C.S. I had not known the 2 accused persons before. They are the 2 in court.
xxd. by <name/>:-
When I first saw the <-_accuseds><+_accused> they were singing "Nyayo juu, KANU Government juu.". They were crossing the road from one side to the other. Both of them were staggering, we felt that accused No.1 with his staggering, he could be hit by a motor vehicle.
AI did not tell us that he had a problem with his legs, after being injured during the struggle for <-/intependence>.
I believe the other people on the lorry also saw them. When we booked them we did so for being drunk. I do not know if I was brought to court on 14/10/91. I have been in the force for 6 years. For an offence like this one, the suspects should have been brought to court on the following day or after 2 or 3 days.
I am not aware of any <*/haklas compus> order made by the High <-/court> which made him to be brought to court charged with this offence.
I can see this order of the High Court in an application No. 451/91. It is in respect of AI and was issued on 11/10/91.
I do not know if he was charged to defeat the order of the High <-/court>. Both <-_accuseds><+_accused> told us that we were arresting them so that they could not go to the meeting on 5/10/91 at Kamukunji.
I have said that they said this at the time of arrest. We arrested them for being drunk. AI did not tell us that he is a KANU life member. He showed us no card to that effect. None of us tore the card. It is us police officers and the people we had arrested who heard what he was saying.
With me I could not be disturbed by what they said. The people we had arrested and were in the lorry were about 15.
A cell can hold a maximum of about 40 people. We put both <-_accuseds><+_accused> in a cell with other people. A cell has a door and a small window through which you can see (through).
The accused are the ones who were banging the door, we left them still beating on the door.
xxd. by A2:- I was not the cell sentry and I do not know if any of the people who came to see you were chased away.
xxr:- None.
<name/>
P.W.2 NO. 51210 P.C. <name/> ALI SWORN STATES:-
I am attached to Pangani Police station.
On 3/10/91 while with other police officers we went to patrol at Eastleigh. While on 2nd Avenue near Mateso Bila Chuki we saw 2 people staggering along the road. We then stopped and arrested them.
On the lorry AI started shouting "Moi Juu Serikali ya Kanu juu". He said this so that he could be set free. A2 was also shouting the same thing.
At the station AI told A2 that these people are <-/priting> us in cells so that they could not attend the Kamukunji meeting.
They then kept on shouting and banging on the cell door. I can see AI. The other <-/on> I cannot recall him well.
xxd. by <name/>:-
AI was staggering on the road. It was not in the usual way walking. I did not know his usual way of walking.
I did not see which direction he was going. I heard AI say that they were being arrested to prevent them from attending the meeting at Kamukunji. I did not take this seriously. I did not bother to know his manner of his walking.
AI did not show me a KANU life membership card. I do not know if he showed it to any other officer. I did not see any KANU <-/badage>.
I booked them for being drunk and disorderly. I do not know when they were taken to court.
I can see this High Court order. I do not know if they were taken to court to defeat the habeas corpus order. I was not there when they were taken to court.
XXR:- None
<name/>
C/P:- That is the close of our case.
<name/>:- I submit no case is made out to put the accused on their defence.
The evidence is clear that they were walking on the road shouting "Nyayo Juu, KANU Government Juu". These words even shouted on a road or a <-/Police> station cannot be any offensive words.
This is the slogan of the day even in meetings attended by the president.
With regard to the staggering, AI has a walking problem. A2 did admit this. Thirdly, there is evidence that P.W.2 never took it seriously when AI said that they were being arrested to prevent them from attending the meeting. This is not inciting.
There is no evidence to confirm who shouted and banged the cell door when there were other prisoners there. Accused should be acquitted and the case dismissed under section 210 C.P.C.
C/P:- There is ample evidence adduced. Accused have a case to answer.
P.W.I stated that the reason for the arrest is that they were walking on the road dangerously in view of the traffic on the road. It is not because of shouting. They were drunk to the point of being incapable of controlling themselves.
As stated by P.W.2 they continued to shout and also banged the cell door. Their other behaviour, they were also charged because of the shouting and banging the door. Nobody took what they said to be an offence but their conduct. 
S1BCE10K
P.W. 1 <name/> M/a/s/states.
I am assistant personnel manager at International Casino. I am in charge of security. I have been in charge of security for 16 years. On 27.2.93 at about 1.00 a.m. the accused was brought to the office. He is a dealer, a trainee dealer. They chip the ball at the gaming room at the casino. He was therefore and employee of the casino. He was brought by one of the bouncers <name/>. I was told he had stolen 12 chips worth Kshs 6,000/- each is worth 500/-) It is the security man who had the chips. The security man told me the accused is to leave the chips at the table and not remove them. As the accused was going for tea, he was suspected to have stolen the chips as one inspector <name/> said he had seen the accused stealing the chips from the table, and that as he was going for tea he was approached and he dropped the chips down and was arrested and brought to security office together with the exhibits. I asked the accused whether he had stolen and he admitted and I told him to write that down and he did. I then rang Parklands police station and he was arrested and I handed them over to police as exhibits. These are the chips (12) MFI 1). They each value at 500/-. I have worked with the accused for all over 6 years. In the course of that period we have never disagreed.
YYD by the accused.
The bouncer who brought you was holding the chips and you were with him. You also came with Inspector<name/>. I have a copy of the statement you wrote. I can show the court. It is here (court shown). I was not aware you were removed from one table to another. I was not there when you were arrested.
Re-examination: Nil.
P.W. 2 <name/> M/a/s/states.
I am an employee of International Casino. I do security work. On the night of 26/2/93 I was on duty. At 12.50 a.m. while on duty I was patrolling around the gaming room, I was called by <name/> and inspector who supervises the dealers.
10.10 a.m. Defence counsel walks into court.
Court: The court reads out the evidence on record to the counsel.
<name/> called me at a loud sound and he told me "<name/> arrest that person". That person was the accused, he was not in the room. He had left the room and moved 15 paces away. The accused had handed over duty to some one else. I hurriedly towards the accused and on seeing me he tried to hurry off and I quickened my steps and as I was going to hold him he threw the chips down and tried to ran off but I held him and I collected the chips and took the accused to the security office. I know the accused is not allowed to leave with the chips. He is supposed to leave them with the supervisor at the table. I have worked with the accused for over 5 years but we have not disagreed. This are the chips (MFI 1).
CC by defence counsel.
The accused was on a table called Black Jack. I do not know how many tables a dealer attends to. There is only one dealer on each table. When a dealer goes for break, there is someone who comes to replace him. There is a lady who replaced the accused. I do not know her. I know the accused was not going to another table. He was going for break. He was from the tables. I am sure he was going for break. He was heading towards the staff door for break. I did collect the chips from where the accused threw them. I collected the chips from the floor. The only other person who saw me arrest the accused was one Dickson. I did not see anything else. It is not true the accused was changing from one table to another. I am convinced the accused was going for break. The accused was walking on but on seeing me, walked faster.
Re-examination: Nil.
P.W. 3 <name/> m/a/s/states.
I work for International Casino as a Gaming Inspector. My main duties are to supervise games. In doing that work we do dealers for Black Jack. On the 26/2/93 in the night I was on duty and at 12.50 a.m. I was inspecting tables. Three and four one dealer <name/> was on table 4. Rotationally a dealer moves from table 4 to three and takes an allowed break as he arranges with the management. There was action of table No. 4. Table No. 3 was empty. At that time <name/> was to move from Table 4 to three. I was seated in between the table, facing the tables. I suddenly heard a "hack" sign and I got attracted and I looked around and realised the chips on the tray had been scooped off. I saw the accused move to table three and I asked him what had happened and he told me in Kiswahili <quote/>
I told him I cannot entertain that rubbish and I went for the accused who started struggling with me and I called <name/> a bouncer and as <name/> came back, the accused realised, all was not well and he tried to throw the chips back but <name/> had gotten hold of him. I stopped the game on table 4 together with <name/> we picked the chips he had dripped. The accused had dropped 12 chips. They are valued at Kshs 500/- each, totalling Kshs 6000/_. If I had not struggled fast, the accused would have thrown them out. He threw them and they landed on the table. They landed on table No. 4. We took the accused and the chips to the manager's office. These are the chips which the accused had stolen (MFI1).
The tables are just next to each other. When a dealer changes tables, and has been given a break, he has to clap and open his hands to show that he has not taken any chips and I would confirm. It is a procedure the accused knows and its in writing. When a dealer leaves one table to another he is not allowed to move with the chips.
XXD by the defence counsel.
We give gaming supervisor according to the operational tables we have gaming officers from the Govt. They only come to check on tax. There was no Govt. gaming supervisor there. There was a dealer <name/> on Table No. 3. It was <name/> who was going for break. It was the accused to replace <name/> on table 3. <name/> was to replace the accused on table 4. The accused was taking a break to table 3 as there was no action on table 3. The procedure of clapping hands was introduced three years ago. It is in writing. I do not have a copy of the same. The chips fell on the table. Table No. 4 none of the chips fell on the floor. I have worked with the accused for long. I am not aware of him having been involved in such a case before. The accused was serving only 4 customers. The customers got chips from the dealer who sells to them. He of course is in custody of those chips.
Re-examination.
There was a struggle when we were arresting the accused. The struggle was towards table 3 which is towards the door.
C/P. I wish to apply for an adjournment for re-arresting officer <name/>. He is on leave. I do not know when he returns. I apply for an adjournment.
Counsel: I have no objection.
Court: Reallocation in court No. 1 on 7/2/94.

C/P. I am not ready. This is a <-_partheard> case, the remaining witness <name/> is on leave, he went before being bonded. He resumes on 15/10/94. I request for an adjournment.
Counsel. I object to the application. The same reason was used on 14/4/94. The investigating officer was absent. The court gave the prosecution the last adjournment. The defence is anxious to finalise this case. It has been <-_ponding> since 1993. The accused is unable to get a job anywhere. I request the court to reject the application.
Court: Ruling on the 11.10.94
Ruling. The prosecution has been given several adjournment in this matter to avail their witnesses in court but have failed to do so. The witness in question is a police officer who should be easily availed in court. The reasons given by the prosecution are not satisfactory. I therefore give the prosecution a last chance and a further two weeks, a period within which to avail the remaining witness in court or close their case. The case will be heard on the 10./10/94.
Court: The court ruling in this matter is clear the prosecution have been given several chances to avail their witnesses in court but in vain. The case cannot be adjourned indefinitely. I reject further adjournment to the prosecution.
C/P. I have not received the police file. It was with another officer this morning and he has disappeared. I request for the case to be put aside.
Counsel. The file should have been in court. The Pros. have been dragging with the matter in this case.
Court: The court's ruling over the prosecution adjournments is clear. The court has ruled against any further adjournment.
C/P. This is a <-_partheard> case it had a total of 5 witnesses. Three of them testified. I pray the case be withdrawn under section 87(a) C.P.O.
Counsel: When the case came up all the witnesses were in court. We are only waiting for one witness. Time again the matter has been adjourned by the prosecution. The defence is convinced the prosecution has no evidence to offer. It would be prejudicial to the accused if the matter is withdrawn. We request for a complete acquittal.
Court: Ruling on the 7/11/94.
Court: The case has gone to such an advanced stage and indeed the witness the prosecution has failed to call is a police officer who should be easily available in court. The case has been dragging on since Feb. to Nov. and the prosecution have failed to call him. I therefore reject the prosecution application as they are trying to go around the court orders.
Court: The application is rejected.
C/P. That is the close of the prosecution case. 
S1BCE11K
P. W. 4 ON OATH:
I am called <name/>. I work with DC's office Kitui as a Higher Clerical officer. My work includes being in charge of data section on 13.10.93. I was in my office at the Date office when an inspector came to look for an official receipt. The District officer allowed me to give out a copy of the same I remained with the duplicate and the police officer went with the photocopy then I wrote a statement. This is the receipt No AN778788 dated 26.9.91 for Kshs. 10/= MFI 4 referred to. This is also receipt No. AN 778788 dated 22.8.91 it is for Kshs. 50,000. It also have a stamp as paid. The other copy MFI 4 is not stamped but MFI 3 is stamped. MFI 1 4 originates from the District <-/Vertinary> officer at Kitui. The in charge then was not known to me.
P.W. 4 Cross-examined by counsel:
In our office I do not have the original. It bears the duplicate  copy of this photocopy. Police do not come for it. I do not have the book copy. In the receipt are 3 copies. Original duplicate and <-/tripulicate>. The duplicate is there in the district office. There should be records of which department was issued with the person from where this receipt have been recovered. I did not go to check who was issued with the book. This was supported by a <-/reguisition> order signed by the District <-/vertary> officer. The inspector of police did not have MFI 3 but he had the number for the duplicate. I saw MFI 3 when I was recording my statement. In the original receipt it was issued and particulars of purchase stated. I do not know who bought the drugs or where they were bought.
Re-examination
Yes the police officer showed me this number of MFI 4. I do not have the duplicate and not the original of MFI4.
P. W. 5 ON OATH:
I am called <name/>. I work with <-/verternary> department Kitui as a <-/Reverve> clerk. My duties includes accounts and receive taking in the DC's office. When we cannot receive we take it to the examiner at the DC's office and we are given a receipt after we have paid in. When an individual comes to me for purchase he goes through the stores and he buys. We then gave him a receipt. At times I write the receipt because we are 3 of us. I then receive the money. We place the money at the safe and later to the DC's office. In October 1991 somebody came and brought drugs medicine. He is the Mulinge. He bought medicine of monies I cannot remember. I think he was issued with a receipt. On MFI 4 have a name Mulinge. It is AM 778788. It is dated 26.10.91. It is for Kshs. 10/= the item bought is written down reads out MFI 4. Police came to me and showed me another receipt. It is this one Number AM 778788 dated 22.8.91 It is for Kshs. 50,000/= MFI 3. I said I had never seen this receipt. They wrote a statement I went away. I did not issue MFI 3. I did not remember the date on the receipt. He showed me amount and the receipt number. I wrote a statement at the police. It was read over to me. I signed it. This is my signature. This one this one and this one. Yes this receipt as shown to me. I  was asked if I knew the writing but I said I did not. In my office at the particular period we were using this receipt number. There were 3 books in the office then. The book with the number of this receipt the book was one Mukuti. I cannot remember the book number that particular time. This receipt is MFI 3 and MFI 4 the same number but are quite different. I did not receive the Kshs. 50,000/=. If I had received it I could have issued a receipt of the same. I have never seen a time we got receipts with same numbers.
P. W. on Oath cross-examined by counsel:
I have been an accounts clerk since 1966. This is about 27 years ago. Over the period I have never seen such a book with similar numbers yet differing particular. I said this book was used by somebody else. I did not write this receipt. I did I cannot say this is my handwriting or not because the original is not there. The writing looks like mine. It reads 26.10.89. We cannot tell whether it is for 26.10.90 or 26.9.91 (shows to the court). MFI 3 ought to be the original of MFI 4. I recollect issuing Mulinge with an original receipt. That original ought to be with Mulinge. In the office the triplicate could be in the office. The police were not asked for the <-/tripulate> at all. I took the duplicate copy I took to the DC's office. Now I cannot confirm MFI 4 without looking at the one I wrote. We are 4 accounts clerks ie <name/> Myself <name/> and <name/>. If I receive money from <name/>I would have written it on the receipt, below. It is unusual for it to be on top. If the receipt as on MFI 3 <-/yest> the book AN 778878 was in use on 22.8.91
Re-examination: Nil
P. W. 6 ON OATH:
<name/>. I work for Dawa Phamacuticals as a sales <-/representive> officer. My firm is at Ruaraka Baba dogo Road. My work includes servicing orders recorded from customers, supply of drugs. We supply to various customers, all over Kenya. We also deal with central Medical stores. The Ministries of Local Government and we did and if they gave as the order we supply on the <-/strughth> of the LPO. In October 1991 I saw 2 CID officers coming to our place of work with a cash sale visiting items. We do not deal with. We retrieved these issue the cash sale case form. This is the cash sale they came with dated 1.10.91. They asked me if it came from our place. We checked on our record and we found it was given to one of our sales men. I told them we do not deal with all such items listed here (shows) MFI 5 marked. It is receipt number 71550 from our records we got to know who we had given the cash sale order. We retrieved the book from our vouchers.
We checked for the book copy but we found all the 6 copies which you see here had been plucked from the book. (shows). This book is from No. 71501 -71550. The last cash sale receipt number is the one now in question. All our sales men return the books to us. It was one <name/> who had been issued with the cash sale. After that the CID officers took this book. I also wrote my statement - Cash sale receipt book MFI 6. We do not supply <-/vertinary> medicine to the <-/vertinary> officers at Kitui.
P. W. cross-examined by counsel:
Yes we found MFI 6 in the Archives. Previously we were not auditing the books. At that time we were not auditing the books. We found the two book copies missing it should be the same number ie 45 to 71556-5 copies are missing. We checked the book and all the 5 copies were missing other than the one the CID officers brought. Yes we discovered all the 6 copies missing. Before the CID officers came we had be been relieved off his own duties so we never traced him. Drugs can be sold to an authorised person ie <-/Phamacist>, or <-/vetinary> officer. I do not know whether he was selling his own drugs or not. It is a receipt from our books.
Re-examination
Nil
P. W. 7 ON AOTH:
I am called <name/>. I work with the department of <-/Vertinary> Kitui as an assistant executive officer since 1989. I took over from mrs <name/> in <-/Janaury> last year. He was transferred to Ahiti. When I was taking over I was given some accountable documents. I signed the documents over report. Some of the documents were used and other not used. Sometimes last year a police officer came inquiring about an official receipt recorded in curt register. I told him it was in our books but it was not handed over to me. This is the book in our records stating from 778700 - 77851. The book was not handed over to me. I did not see the book but the receipt was from it. I checked against our register and it was first issued to <name/> and later issued to <name/>. The book was returned to our office but was never handed over to me but records show it was returned. I later recorded my statement.
P. W. 7 cross-examined by counsel:
The book shows that record for 178700 to 77787 but I do not know the other number but I can if I go back to my records. I do have the counter register, book from the treasury. Without it I cannot remember the number. Without the book the court cannot confirm what I am saying. Police officer book in the office I released the book but it was never handed over to me. Nobody asked for it until police came to me. <name/> was the District <-/vertinery> officer. He too was transferred and came <name/>. When we receive books we issue them to the account clerk after recording them. I interviewed <name/> I never asked him where the book was. I never asked <name/> because he was transferred to Kagundo.
Re-examination
Nil
P. W. 8 ON OATH:
I am called <name/>. A document examiner CID Headquarters Nairobi. My duties include examination and comparison of documents. On 10.10.92 I received the following documents from IP Ngulu of CID Kitui. I received 3 documents marked A B and C. I also received marked document DI - D6 EI to E6 FI - F6 and the known writing on GI to G2. These are the 3 marked ABC MFI 4 and MFI 5 and 3 and 2. These are the STD writing DI to D6 MFI 6. EI to E6 marked MFI 8. Standard writing FI to F6 MFI 9. GI to G2 MFI 1 10. I did examine the writings and found no agreement for a claim of common origin. I prepared a report which I signed. I produce it as an exhibit.
Report exhibit 11.
P. W. 8 cross-examined by counsel:
Nil
P. W. 9 ON OATH:
I am called <name/>. I work in Kitui Ministry for Livestock Development as a Kidos and skins officer. As a hides and skins officer my duty includes <-/licencing> traders. I do collect and receive the hides and skins on behalf of the Government. I do issue receipts to the customers. I know the accused who used do be my deputy DPO. In 1991 I was still in Kitui. The revenue, clerk who was in the DCS office dealing with live stock borrowed my receipt book. He was Mutiso. It was for accounting of drugs. He used the receipt book and brought it back to me. This is the receipt book I am speaking about. He used every one leaf from my receipt book. He brought me the book and I remitted the revenue to the DC's office. He returned the receipt book to me. I cannot remember the receipt number he used off head. Yes this is the photocopy as the duplicate he used. It was for Kshs.10/=. It is dated 26.9.91 - MFI 4 referred to. Later I returned the book to the receipting officer. Later I was shown the duplicate by the CID officers. I recorded my statement. Yes I was shown this receipt No. AM 78 dated 22.8.91. It is for 50,000/= MFI 3 referred to bares the same number with MFI 4. I did not check with the receipt book I was using that day 
S1BCE12K
P. W. 9 Cross-examined by counsel:
I can remember I remitted Kshs. 10/0 but the total collection for the day have crossed my mind. After I completed the receipt book I gave it to the receipting officer <name/> did not write the receipt in my presence. I saw both the duplicate and the <-/tripulicate>. I did not see the original MFI 3 because it was to be given to the buyer of the drugs. The original and duplicate ought to be read the same. 
They do not read the same. The original of this duplicate is at the DC's office. <name/> returned to me the receipt book on the same day. I did not initial for receipt of the 10/=. We were using a same receipt book that month because there was a shortage of receipt books. We do sometimes share books. It was supposed to be his book.
P. W. 10 ON OATH:
I am called  <name/>. I work in Nairobi Vertinery central as an accountant here in Nairobi. My duty includes collecting cash books receipts and checking actual receipt documents. On 24.9.92 I was in the office. Some people came with cash sale receipts. They had come from Kitui. They presented the receipts to that I could tell than the book copies collects. After leaving I found the original and the copy differed. They asked for a copy of the duplicate copy. I gave them the copy and I recorded a statement. This is the copy I am referring to cash sale No. 5350 of 1.1.91 for 	1. 1x2 Kg Mercury Plus at 42.74/=.
				2. 21x 52 fold for 1540/=.
				3. 40 lts savive
				4. 20 injections at 1428/=
				5. 2 tittue counters 5875/= total 4064.65/=. I checked and found we sell almost all the items here. We checked and found that we had only sold the first items and not the others. The last item we sold it at 5.70/=. I then wrote my statement. Receipt MFI 2 Yes this receipt had originated at Nairobi <-/Vertinery> centre.
P. W. 10 on cross-examined by counsel:
I compared MFI 12 with the duplicate to see I sold only the first item. I gave the duplicate copy to the officer who took my statement. I do not have the copy in court but one in the office. He was a photocopy of the duplicate copy. I gave him a copy. I did not write the details in the receipt . It is not in my own hand. The receipt as per the first item originated from us.
Re-examination
Nil
P. W. 11 ON OATH:
<name/> auditor. I work  with the Ministry of Lands Reclamation and <-/Reginal> Development, in Nairobi now. I am a planning officer. On 8.10.92 I was in Kitui as a Programme officer for a Development Programme. I know the accused who was the Deputy <-/Vertinery> officer at the Ministry of Live stole Development. On 8.10.91 it concerns some purchases made by the department. It had asked for money to buy some items, for the department. They had applied for an <-/imprest>. The receipts have to be handed over to us by the head of the department. I know about some purchase of vaccines in this case. They brought the receipts to surrender the <-/imprest>. They were passed but later on I heard it was carried and it was indicated they were not in order. After the audit was told to write a statement. I had advised them <-/imprest> department on the documents submitted. I signed the <-/imprest> document. I do not remember the amount. Police latter approached me I wrote a statement. I was shown some receipts. These are the receipts MFI 3 and MFI 5. I was not shown this book (MFI 6). AM 778788 is of 22.8.91 and is an official receipt for Kshs. 50,000/=. I remember having cleared the said <-/imprest> to <name/>. This copy bares the same number dated 26.10.91. It is for Kshs. 10/=. I do not remember seeing MFI 4. Before clearing MFI 3 I checked whether the head of the department had indicated the purchase had been done and if other officers had checked on it and then I checked the <-/imprest>. Later I learnt the vaccines were not purchased as per the Auditors report.
P. W. 11 cross-examined by counsel:
The <-/imprest> was <-/deceared> to me. I received these documents I filled the surrender voucher. I do not know where the voucher is. I have given it to the police. So I am not sure the same was surrendered. There was an <-/imprest> have one voucher, MFI 5 referred to. It does not bare doctor <name/>'s name. There is a signature at the back. I relied on the voucher which is not in court today. From these documents in court tell <-/imprest> was given to the accused or who surrendered the same. Police told me <name/> surrendered the <-/imprest>. They told me the vaccines had not been bought. I cannot know what the vaccine was for. As I stand here I do not know whether any <-/imprest> was given to the accused or not. <name/> was not the District <-/Vertinery> officer. He was the deputy. It was either doctor <name/> or Dr. <name/>.
Re-examination:
Accused was not the in charge of the <-/Vertinery> department. He was  a deputy MFI 3 referred to. The <-/imprest> was to go to Dr. <name/> for purchase of Vaccines (reads cut). MFI 5 speaks of district <-/Vertinery> officer Kitui. 
P. W. 12 ON OATH:
No. 215968 IP <name/> CID Headquarters Nairobi. I am the investigating officer in this case. Sometimes in July 1992 I <-/accampnied> CIP <name/> to Kitui where we were to carry out investigations at Kitui <-/interfracted> Development Programme after an audit report had come to us from Price Water House we collected the questioned documents. They  were several questions where the Price Water House confirmed were not genuine. Among them were some for <-/Vertinery> Department. There were receipts used to surrender some <-/imprest>. There was an official Government receipt No. AM 778788 for 50,000/= marked MFI 2 3. I went to the DC's office to confirm but the receipts found there were the same number was for only 10/= MFI 4. It bares the same number as MFI 3. There was also a receipt from Dawa Phamacuticlas for  20,567/= MFI 5. I went to Dawa Phamacuticals and the questioned receipt book appears to have no such receipt because it was torn out. I took MFI 6 from Dawa Phamacuticals. I also went to Nairobi <-/Vertinery> centre where I checked for the receipt No. 5350 dated 1.10.91 MFI 12. When I checked I found it was only for 5.70/= according to their counterfoil book. I took a photocopy of the counterfoil book which I got certified as a true copy of duplicate MFI 3. Since the ones concerned with the receipt denied I preferred the present charges against them. I produce also the specimen as exhibits which I gave to the document examiner. I produce them as exhibits exhibit I to 13 produced. Accused pointed out.
Accused used to be a <-/Vertinery> doctor.
P. W. 12 cross-examined by counsel:
Exhibit 3 and 5 referred to. According to my investigations the vaccines were not purchased. 
Prosecutor close of prosecution case.
Counsel in submission:
Accused is charged with stealing by a person in employment.
Count I <-/marrates> the vaccines were not purchased. As per the charge sheet they were purchased and stolen. Count 2 is of stealing various items but all were not purchased and also count 3. The evidence does not terry with the particulars of the charge sheet. Accused is not charged of stealing the money. In as long as it inconsistent with the particulars of the charge sheet the accused knew to sell the same. I urge the court to award the accused the benefits of doubts and a caution in number section 210 CPC. 
Prosecutor In reply:
Exhibit 3 shows accused received an <-/imprest> of Kshs. 50,000/= as cash. Exhibit 5 shows the items were bought and received by the department so the question of the accused not to have taken the vaccines does not arise at all. The documents are all under evidence adduced by the prosecution warrants the accused to have a case to answer a case.
Ruling 
In the course of 1991 I was the deputy to the District <-/Vertinery> Officer Kitui. There was a Programme <-/Foward> the Kitui Integrated Development, Programme. The Programme was funding <-/Vaccination> of companies within our development. For that reason the District <-/Vertinery> Officer would take <-/imprest> to fund the project from the programme. As a deputy there were <-/instutes> where I would take the <-/imprest> on behalf of the department. Regarding the case in question I was not involved in the taking of the <-/imprest>, nor in the surrender but in the course of the route investigations I was called upon to give and examination as to how the Fund had been utilised. In the course of 1992 I was transferred to Mukueni District so while there investigations were going on I was not in Kitui any more I was in Makueni district. When I was called upon to give an explanation I did not know why my name featured at all except that on one of the documents used to surrender present somebody had put my name on. It was an official receipt from the Government, of Kenya. From the evidence adduced it was became credible at no time was I involved in the request for the <-/imprest> or the surrender, neither in the purchase of the items and at no time has it been adduced in court I came across the stores or take away the stores where they were kept in custody. The storeman revenue clerk all stood on the <-/dook> and said I never came to <-/intoucher> of the stores or that the store was broken and anything stolen. I have no idea why I am standing here but somebody scribed my name on one of the documents. I am innocent on all the counts.
Accused cross-examined by Prosecutor:
I was the deputy to the District <-/Vertinery> Officer. My work was involved deputising and handwriting duties ie vaccination. Yes, I used to get assistant from the programme of vaccines, transport and other facities. Before getting the assistant we make a formal request with a budgetary not on the request. The District <-/Vertinery> officer made the requests but in his absence I would make my request. On 27.8.91 I did not apply for an <-/imprest>., or vaccine worthy 50,000/=. The district <-/vertinery> officer may have applied. He was on duty. He was Dr. <name/>. Dawa Phamacuticuals is one of firms that supply drugs. We have dealt with them directly. I did not make an order with them then, I did have a secretary in my office one Stella Munenen. I could delegate writing of some documents to her. I could go through them before they are dispatched. Exhibit 2 refereed to. It does have my name as doctor <name/> for <-/imprest> 50,000/=. It is an <-/imprest> from me. It is not signed. It does have a signature of a programme director. Exhibit 3 referred to. It is number AM 778788. It bares my name. It is for 50,000/= <-/imprest>. I do not know how my name appeared on the two documents. Exhibit 4 before court. It bares the same receipt number as exhibit 3. This is for 50,000/= and the other for 10/=. When we got shortage of receipts we would not go for them from the DC's office. I do not remember any witness saying I applied for the said <-/impresent>. I deny applying for <-/imprest> and never for forged any receipt.
Re-examination: I never wrote exhibit 3 or even the name of it. I did not deal with the <-/reverant> documents at all. I never wrote  exhibit 4. My signature does not appear on exhibit 2. I did not fill the clearance form. I did not onion the 50,000/=. I did not buy the vaccines for my department. 
Counsel: I wish to submit in written form on 7.9.93
S1BCE13K
P. W. XTIAN MALE SWORN STATES:
My number is 38833 P. C. <name/> attached to CID Nairobi area autorobbery Unit. On 13.3.90 I and other officers got a report on robbery which had taken place at Nyeri town in a beer <-/Depo>. We got information that the thugs were more than five and that they had planned to hold their secret meeting in Eastheigh, section Three near Suncity cinema.
We then arranged for an ambush at the place. I was with Sgt <name/>, Sgt <name/> P. C. <name/> and P. C. <name/>.
At 12.45 p.m. a vehicle KPB 954 which is a taxi, arrived carrying the suspects. We stopped the vehicle and it stopped. There were four men and one woman in the car. We searched them and I got a toy pistol from one of them. We then took them to Shaurimoyo police station for questioning. On questioning them they informed us that the other thugs were waiting for them in Mathare Valley. The woman suspect took us to Mathare Valley and pointed out a house where their companions were waiting. When we neared the house one man came out of the house running very fast. Sgt <name/> chased him and arrested him.
I Sgt <name/> and the woman suspect who was <name/> entered into the house in question. We found <name/> who is the man accused inside the house.
Accused was <-/conceating> himself behind the door holding a pistol in his hand. We ordered him to surrender the pistol and he threw it onto the bed. We checked the pistol and found it was .38 special No. A24753 which is this one (marked MFI 1) No. 247553 loaded with six bullets. If the crimes we committed early I still could charge you with that charge plus another one (wit shown the charge sheet). Yes I can see this 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th counts on this charge sheet which alleges that on 2.4.90 <name/>, <name/> and <name/> committed three robberies using a pistol Webbly No. A24753 (charge sheet marked MFI D2) I agree your name is not on this charge sheet although the pistol is the same subject matter of this charge. I do not know that some other suspects were charged in connection with this same pistol. In January 1990 I was still in Nairobi. I agree we use VHT to inform other officers if a suspect is escaping. Before 30.3.90 I did not know you. I agree in the police station we keep a record of suspects we arrest. I sent you to Pangani police station then (proceeded to Nyeri). I do not remember telling a policeman in Pangani police not to book you. You were at Mathare not Karioko. 
Re-examined by prosecutor:
I can see this MFI D I and MFI D2 I agree in the 6th count of MFI I and 2 this accuse is 6th accused in that case and the particulars says an 30.3.90 accused and others were armed with MFI 7th count also charges accused with possessing MFI I without firearm certificate I arrested accused on 31.3.90 not 13.3.90. I say 31.3.90 not 13.3.90.
P. W. 8 XTIAN MALES SWOR STATES:
My name is Doctor <name/> attached to Nairobi police surgeon Nairobi. On 5.4.90 I examined PW I in a case of assault. I found he had a healed wound on right side of abdomen.
He had an operation on the abdomen and a repair of perforations in the intestines. The injuries were about 25 days old. They had been cause by a gun shot. He had been admitted at Kenyatta Hospital from five days. I assessed the degree of injury as <-/grevious> harm. I completed the P3 and signed it and I beg to produce it as exhibit 4. 
Cross-examined by accused
Nil
P. W. 9 XTIAN MALE SWORN STATES:
My name is <name/>. I am a firearm examiner attached to Firearm <-/labatory> of CID Headquarters Nairobi. My duty includes examination of firearms and ammunition and identification of fired bullets and expanded cartridges. This is a full time occupation. I have 18 years experience. I received the following exhibits from P. C. <name/> on 12.3.90.
One fired bullet which is this one (MFI 5) which has been shown to me by prosecutor. I received from supt <name/> on 2.4.90 the following.
One Webbley and scot Revolver serial No. A 24753 which is this one MFI I) shown to me by prosecutor. I have examined the exhibit referred to above. 
MFI is a Webbley and scot revolver in 32 calibre. Serial number A 24753. This revolver is in good general and mechanical condition complete with all its components and capable of being fired. It is not prove to accidental discharge. I have successfully tested fired the same revolver by using three appropriate calibre round of ammunitions from our store.
The fired bullets were all recovered, marked and retained for purposes of comparisons. These are the three fired bullets marked (T stands for Test). (bullets marked MFI 6). I formed an opinion that MFI I is capable of being fired and that it is a firearm in terms of Firearm Act Cap 114.
MFI 5 is a fired bullet in calibre 7.65 mm and this is <-/eqquevalent> of .32 inches calibre automatic pistols. The said bullet is rather deformed. It would appear that the said bullet MFI 5 struck an object on impact and in the process it became so deformed.
The deformity on the same bullet has rendered some of the rifling markings unsuitable for comparative microscopic examination. I also found the same bullet was engraved with seven lands and groves which are the rifling of the burrow. 
This bullet was microscopically examined and compared with each of the fired bullets  (MFI 6). From the <-/compatives> made, I found sufficient watching rifling striations to convince me that the MFI I had been used to fire MFI 5. I used pistol ammunitions to test fire MFI I because the bullet MFI 5 the type used or loaded in pistol MFI 5 was not <-/approrpriate> for revolvers.
Summons to issue to executive officer R.M. <name/> to produce their criminal case file 2366/90 and chief magistrate execute officer to produce criminal case file 1 760/90, and 0/I Makongeni to produce him O.B. of 25.1.90
Order:
On application exhibit I 5 and 6 to be returned to DCIO Kasarani through PW 10 for custody.
The woman and the photographs should have been produced in court. This evidence was given by PW 3. On 30.3.90 I reported to my place of work. At 1.00 p.m. I went to Karioko market for lunch on arrival some CID officers called me. These officers had arrested me on 25.1.90. They took me to Pangani police station. On 5.4.90 I was taken to police parade at Pangani police station I was informed about the parade. I asked what was it for . I was told I will know in court. The parade was done and I was identified. On 10.4.90 I was brought to court charged with attempting murder and I pleaded not guilty.
I want the OB of 25.1.90 of Makongeni police station to show that I had been arrested and that PW 7 P. C. <name/> saw me.
Prosecutor:
The OB 41 of 25.1.91 reads at 6.00 p.m. prisoner in ID S. Langat and a Team of CID Headquarters Q 22 are now in station and hands in two adult male prisoners namely 1. ID NI1 <name/> and 2. ID <name/> to be detained for offences of Robbery with violence now searched and placed in cells. Appearing normal.
OB signed 
Remarks on OB <name/> PP Prisoners property (shs. 763/10 one wrist watch Kienzed and one torch then the suspects had signed).
Accused:	I agree the OB on 25.1.91 reads as read in court by prosecutor. I agree PW 7 is not <-/initated> in the OB.
Accused:	
I now beg to produce police charge sheet of chief magistrate criminal case No. 1769/90 where I was the 4th accused.
In this charge arresting officer said he got his gun from Mathare and he also said Muranga criminal case 2366/90.
Prosecutor:	We still can call R.M. Court Muranga Criminal case file No. 2366/90
Court:
Mention on 6.11.91 for RO.M. Muranga case file 2366/90 to be produced.
D. W. 2 XTIAN MALE SWORN STATES:
My name is <name/>. I am an officer from SRM Muranga. I am attached to Criminal Registry criminal case files are in my custody. I have this criminal case No. 2366/90 with me in court. Accused is <name/> and second accused is <name/>. 
This case has been <-/finilised>. I beg to produce this case as D exhibit 2. This case was heard by Mr. <name/> the senior R.M.
I can see evidence of PW 2 <name/>. I can see the evidence on page 21 of this record, where P. W. 2 states The Pistol looks like this one (court shown G. Point .38 revolver serial No. A24753 marked exhibit 2).
Cross-examined by prosecutor:
The offence was alleged to have been committed on 22.1. 90 and the offence was robbery c/sec 296(2) P.C. The offence was alleged to had been committed on Githoe village in Muranga. This case is finished as accused were acquitted. I can see the evidence of PW 4 cpl <name/> who said the offence in this case was committed on 22.1.90
Re-examined by Prosecutor
Nil
Prosecutor:
Accused gave sworn statement and I want to cross-examine him now.
D . W. I (ACCUSED) RECALLED SWORN STATES.
P. W. 7 P.C. <name/> said I was arrested on 25.1.91. The OB said P.C. <name/> and team of CID Headquarters. I was not charged. I was arrested with <name/> but we were not charged. We were charged with theft and the charge was withdrawn I was not present when PW I was shot. Police on 9.3.90 went to some one else house not mine. P. W. 5 identified me but the police parade was a false. PW 2 did not say I produced money shs. 160/= and put on the table. I owe PW 1 nothing. I did not suggest that they PW2 had taken my shoes by force. 
PW 2 denied having taken my shoes by force. PW 3 never sew us quarrelling. My house was broken into, I agree a gun can be used several times before it is seized by police. 
R/C for judgement on 18.12.91
S1BCE14K
P.W.II A MALE ADULT SWORN AND STATES:-
My name is <name/>. I work for the post office of City Square as a supervisor. I have worked for the past 25 years, and 6 years as a supervisor. My duties are to re-check the savings withdrawal forms whether the names and the ID. correspond. If <-_its><+_it's> genuine. I put my special day stamp and initial the form. We are 2 supervisors on one <-_shifts><+_shift>, viz. The morning and in the afternoon. The special date stamps are locked in the cupboard, either me or my colleague takes it and nobody else. Between October, 1990 I was there. There were several supervisors but at any given time we were four. I do not remember the names of the other three. We had three special date stamps and they were coded and had Nos. Viz. 114, 370, and 364. We were using three No.370 was broken at a period. I cannot remember. 
Court:- Mr. <name/> enters Court and apologise for being late.
P.W.II continues:-
We reported the matter to our O.C. it has been taken back savings H.Q. on a date I cannot remember. I cannot tell the No. of our supervisors at the counter, nor their names nor their signatures. Ref: MFI-5 forms I know nothing about these forms. They are neither signed nor <-/initialed> nor special date stamp Nos. Ref: MFI-6 the 6 forms bear the special day stamp but not the one we use as it has No. Nos.its bear initialled but not by me. None of them bear any serial Nos. Ref: MFI-7, a set of S.B. forms have no special date stamps Nos. They are initialled but not by me. Date of issue on 19.1.90. Ref: MFI-9 a set of 9 forms, they all bear the special date stamp but there is no code No. issued on 21.10.89 and on 19.10.89, and 21.10.89, 29.10.89 they are all initialled but not by me. I do not recognise any of those initials. Ref: MFI-10, it bears a special date stamp but no code No. I issued on 7.10.89, it is initialled but not by me. Ref: MFI-10, they all bear the special date stamps but no code Nos. date of issues is 24.10.89. All except one are initialled but I cannot identify the initials and neither are they mine. Ref: MFI-13, <-_its><+_it's> got a special date stamp and no code No. <-_Its><+_it's> initialled but not by me., date of issue 14.10.89. Ref: MFI-14, viz 20 forms they all bear the special date stamp but it does not have code Nos and none are initialled. Issued ion 9.2.90. Ref: MFI-14(a) a set of five S.B.21 forms they are all date stamped but it doesn't have any code Nos. They are all initialled. I do not recognize the initials and neither did I initial them. They were issued on 25.10.89 Ref: MFI-14(b), 11 S.B. 21 forms they all bear the special date stamps but no code Nos. They are initialled but not by me. Issued on 24.10.89 Ref: MFI-14(c) they are all date stamped but no code No. They are initialled but not by me, Issued on 14.10.89 Ref: MFI-14(d), 6 forms they are all initialled but not by me. The special date stamp has no code Nos. Issued on 27.10.89. Ref: MFI-14(e) they all bear the special date stamps but no code Nos. None of the initials are mine. Issued on 14.10.89.
Ref: MFI-14(f) they all bear the special date stamp but with no code Nos. none of the initials are mine. Issued on  11.10.89 but the three top ones don't have legible dates. There is over-writing. Ref: MFI-14(g) they all bear the special date stamps but there is no code Nos. They are all initialled except for the 1st one. None of the initials are mine. Issued on 25.10.89 and last one on 2.11.89.
Ref: MFI-14(h) they all bear the special day stamps but with no code Nos. All are initialled but not by me. Issued on 24.10.89 and is dated on 24.6.89.
Ref: MFI-14(i), they all bear the special day stamp but there is no code No. All are initialled but not by me issued on 18.11.89 and 1st one has no date of issue.
Ref: MFI-15(a) they all bear the special date stamp but No code Nos. All are initialled but none of initials is mine. Issued on 13.10.89. Ref: MFI-15(b) they are all except 3 are initialled but none bears my initials. They have date stamps but with no code Nos. they were issued on 17.10.89.
Ref: MFI-15(c), they all bear the special day stamp but <-_has><+_have> no code Nos. All except two are not initialled but not by me. Issued on 19.10.89. Ref: MFI-15(d) ten S.B. forms they bear the special date stamps but no code Nos. They are all <-/initialls> but not by me. Issued on 21.10.89 and two 1st one is over written and 3rd from last not legible.
Ref: MFI-15(e) 2 S.B. forms they both bear the special date stamp but no code Nos. They are initialled but not by me. The significance of the code No. on the special date stamps denotes the station or office. No two post offices use the same Nos. All these forms never passed through my hands.
xx. by Mr. <name/> for 1st and 6th Accuseds:-
I would only initial these forms when I am on duty. I cannot tell if I was on duty these occasions. Yes, there was a time when a date stamp got broken but I cannot tell the period. It was fading progressively and I reported to our O.C. in writing. We continue using the good one as the bad ones cannot be used any longer. We add ink if it progressively fades and if it is bad <-_a><+_and> cannot work any longer, we stop using it. We have a diary, I do not know where such diaries are and I cannot know when a report was made as it was a long time.
I do not know the initials of workmates and I do not know the authors of these forms as they never passed through my hands. The forms are proper forms. Payment can only be made after the supervisor has initialled and I was not the only supervisor.
xx. by Mrs. <name/> for 2nd and 8th accused:-
After my duty I handed over to the supervisor of the next shift. I remained with the key till the next day when handed over to the next supervisor. The checking team checks. They checked everything including the special date stamp. If the found any defective stamps, they would have to report I cannot tell the signature of clerks in my shifts whom I supervised. I did not know their signatures then.
xx. by Mr. <name/> for 3rd and 7th accuseds:-
Yes, I reported to my O.C. that one stamp was bad. Once I report a bad stamp, it cannot be used any more. I reported only once, at City Square we had three date stamps - Ref: statement, that there were only two special date stamps, because one was not working and those working were only two. The police did not ask me if one was not working.
xx. by 5th accused:- NIL.
xx. by 9th Accused:- NIL.
Re-examination:-
The defective stamp was broken at once. The checking team checks everything including the date stamp, otherwise we defect the defects before they come.
Prosecutor:- The investigating officer has not brought the exhibits when we were all assembled here at 2 p.m. on the dot. I have witnessed but I need the exhibits. I ask for case to start on 14.9.92.
Mr. <name/>:- We do not oppose the application for adjournment since we do not know what would have happened to the investigating officer.
Mrs. <name/>:- I leave it to court.
Court:- Stood over to 14.9.92 at 2 p.m. at Law Courts and Bond Extended.
P.W.12 A MALE ADULTS SWORN AND STATES:-
My name is <name/>. I work currently at Enterprise post office as Postal superintendent, for 7 years since 1985. I have worked for 19 years. In 1989 to 1990 I was attached to City Square post office as Ag. Senior Postal superintendent. My duties were I was the in-charge of cash A/Cs. Section and used to reconcile cash A/Cs. for City Square post office. Once the daily transactions were balanced e.g. saving deposits and withdraws etc., A balance PI.65 booklet was compiled by the cashiers. It is called a counter balance book. In it is reflected the daily transactions and it has to balance. It was a busy place and I had a support staff. They balanced and I had to verify. Another prepared a summary and we had to compare the figures. I verified the counter balances and the documents were verified by another office to ensure that the summaries were correct. Ref: This is a counter-balance book, MFI-16 it was held at City Square post office from 14.8.89 to 6.12.89. The book was held by <name/> and I knew him, he is the 2nd accused. He worked as a counter clerk. He was solely responsible for entries in that book e.g. on 2.10.89 he dealt with money orders. The book is balance and I verified and transfer these figures to summary transactions, P.270. I mark in red that it is balanced and I have to verify that the cash was given to the cashier. The tickings in red are mine, I over looked signing at "checked by".
I did not sign although I checked due to pressure of work. Ref: MFI-17 book from 13.7.89 to 23.11.89. The book was for <name/>. Yes I knew her she worked as a counter clerk and she is the 6th accused. I checked this book and I did not initial due to pressure of work, though I checked it. Ref: MFI-18, it was held by our post office at City Square from 14.7.89 to 8.12.89. It was held by <name/> and <name/> from 13.9.89 and also <name/> &<name/> it is the 8th accused <name/> and he also worked as a counter-clerk. I checked it and it has my red marks. I did not sign it, I then transfer the information on P.270 form which had many columns for summary of daily duties and transactions. A 2nd person verifies the information and <-_its><+_it's> put on ACI 107 form. It is brought to me for comparison, they are further transferred to AC.102 which is a cash A/C. balance sheet if they do not balance, then it s brought to the notice of the officer concerned. The counter clerk also comes and certifies if there is an excess form P2 242 is completed and SI 23 a misc. A/C issued. In case of a shortage form P2 41 is completed and the shortage must be paid by the officer concerned. Once the A/C has balanced, <-_its><+_it's> taken to the head post master to check. We then dispatch it to our Divisional cash A/C. A/Cs and finance branch this book was held by many various people, due to several counter clerks taking over the same counter.
xx. by Mr. <name/> for 1st and 6th Accuseds:-
Ref: MFI-17, and there is no initial of mine put on it. Apart from what I am saying there is nothing in the book to suggest I dealt with it except for ticks in red pens. A red pen has a normal pen for superintendents checkings this book. In the red pen I wrote the final amounts and not the accounts officials concerned. I did not sign for alterations of amounts from what time counter clerk had written to what I got from the supporting documents. As a result of the alterations I am responsible. The supposing documents are checked by somebody else and I was using them at the summary. The summaries come to me and I verify. I check the automatics only, later on I get the supporting documents and if they talk the same figure, it is okay. I have not seen the supporting documents now for this book.
The P. 270 is for transactions on 2.10.89, I filled it but <-_its><+_it's> not here. It would tell us what the supporting documents talked about. For 1076 is a summary of savings transactions. It is brought to me to compare with my P. 270. I need all the documents to vouch for summaries in those books. 
xx. by Mr. <name/> for 2nd and 8th accuseds:-
On the morning of the next day is when I got the documents till noon. At noon the counter clerk comes and collects it i.e. the books - MFI-16,17, and 18. I was commenting for the counter-clerk to do what he had not done. I bring it to the notice of the counter-clerk and I expect a correction. MFI-18 at date 7.11.89, the cash and the stocks, they closed to work on 6th there and were handed over to another counter-clerk. This was made by the supervisor and not by me. They were handed over to the supervisor i.e. cash and stock for outgoing counter-clerk.
xx. by Mr. <name/> for 3rd and 7th accuseds:-
This book is important in the accounting system of the post office. That in the procedure, for the supervisor to write in red it is permissible. Supervisors also use red pens as they are postal superintendents. I was acting then. I take to him the summarised i.e. the final A/C.
I wrote the remark that I hope you are not covering any shortage by covering exceeding amounts. They were expected to keep 20/= as cash on hand and when I saw 120/= I made the comment, where the discrepancy does not exceed 5/= there is no much problem. Due to pressure of work I had not signed.
xx. by the 5th accused:- NIL.
xx. by the 9th accused:- NIL.
xx. by the 10th accused:- Nil.
Re-examination:-
I am not responsible for figures in red as I changed them when there are changes on the documents by other persons, other than me. It is procedural for the supervisor to write in red especially when the counter clerk is going on leave etc., and the supervisor remains with his cash in hand for handing it over to the in-coming counter clerk. The counter-clerk is only supposed to hold 20/= but I had seen 120/= and I made the comment for future reference. I regret the <-/ommission> of my signature due to pressure of work.
S1BCE15K
P.W. 5 Adult male <-/xtian> sworn states in English
My name is <name/>. I work at the D.C.'s office Isiolo as the District Accountant. I have been in Isiolo in that capacity for 3 years. From 1986 - 1990 I was the deputy district accountant. My functions are I am in charge of financial matters in the District. This involves receiving all the documents of all the departments processing payments wither by cheque or cash, collection of Revenue in the District and seeing that the revenue is surrendered to the treasury. My office was situated in the D.C.'s office.
During the course of my duties I came to know the accused as the District Trade Officer. He was a head of Department. He was taken round on the departments. He was in charge of the trade office and also the secretary and treasurer of the District form joint board. Yes we had money transactions between his office and mine, including payment of vouchers and cheques and the surrender of trade Revenue.
These two cheques were brought to me by the trade officer Mr. <name/>. He told me that the payees had no accounts so he asked me to encash the cheques. Cheques No. SISI/88 I36619 MFI 24 payable <name/> dated 21.2.90. Kshs. 20,000/=. I asked him to identify the payee so he <_/indorsed> the cheque that the payee was not to him and he signed it.
The second cheque is ISSI/88 I30620 MFI 23 dated 1.2.90 payable to <name/> of Kshs. 20,000/=. He also asked the same as above and I also asked him to identify the payee and he endorsed the cheque to the effect that the payee was known to him and he signed it.
I paid them.
After the cheques were paid by the cashier. The cheques were Referred to the Drawer because there was no money in that account. They were subsequently rebanked and honoured. On 23.8.90 the police recorded my statement at CID office Isiolo.
Cross examined by Accused.
We were not that close i.e. you and me i.e. socially.
Yes I was the deputy but any accountant can endorse the cheques. It is not true that you avoided the other accountants because I was your friend cheques can be presented by the payee or in the company of the head of department. <._>or in the company of the head of department<./>.
It is not possible to encash the cheques without the District <-_accountants><+_accountant's> authority normally the head of Department may come personally or call or send a note requesting assistance for his friend.
The authority is for the payee but the person who identified the payee is responsible in case the cheque bounces.
Yes in the instant cases the trade officer committed himself. There were many <-/others> cheques endorsed for some of the people would come with the cheques, others you would come personally, or call or send a note requesting assistance for his friend, The authority is for the payee but the person who identified the payee is responsible in case the cheque bounces.
Yes in the instant cases the trade officer, committed himself. There were many other cheques endorsed for you some of the people would come with the cheques, other you would come personally.
With these 2 you came to the office.
There was no irregularity on the cheque and the cashier would notify the <-/physicall> identification of the payees.
I <-_dont><don't> know what you discussed with Mr. <name/> (I.e. my boss) but he asked me to back the cheques it is normal practice for the trade office cheques to be cashier with us.
Re-examined by CP:
NIL.
P.W.6: ADULT Male <-/xtian> sworn states in English:
My name is <name/> currently I work with D.C.'s office Isiolo. I am the acting District cashier, my duties amongst others is pay and receive government Revenue. I have been in Isiolo from 1981 <-/upto> now, I worked in the present capacity from 1988. My office is situated within the DC's office. I have known accused since he reported at the District as the District trade officer and was introduced to us. He was also the secretary of the joint trade board My office and his had a lot of transactions they were correcting <-/alot> of Revenues which would be brought to our office.
On 23.8.90 I was called to the CID office in relation to some cheques <_/>cheques which I had paid. The first one 136619 21.2.90 payable to <name/> Kshs.20,000/=.
The trader involved was brought to my office by Mr. <name/> who was the District trade office. He told me that the traders had been given a loan by the joint board but they had no bank accounts and so he was requesting that he be paid from the treasury. Having looked at the cheque I noticed that it had been endorsed by all the signatories, and at the bank the Deputy District Accountant had also endorsed it for cash payment so I asked the payee to produce his ID card but he did not have it, so Mr. <name/> Identified him as being known to him so having no doubt that Mr. <name/> as the District trade officer knew the trader well I paid the cash to the trade. <Name/> signed the cheque that the payee was known to him. The cheque was for 20,000/=. Cheque No. 136620 21.2.90 to <name/> Kshs. 20,000/= it was also brought by a trader who was introduced by Mr. <name/>, he wanted the cheque cashed. This trader also did not have his ID card. I asked Mr. <name/> whether he knew the trader and Mr. <name/> said yes and identified him and signed at the back of the cheque. I paid the cash to our trader. The cheque Is number 136620. Mr. <name/> was signing. In his capacity as the secretary of the joint loan board. So I had no doubts because he was the one dealing with these traders and I knew that he knew very well. 136620 dated 21.2.90.
In the name of <name/>. The cheque was brought by a trader whom I <-_didnt><+_didn't> know so after asking him for his ID he said he did not have it. So the trader went back to the District trade office and he came back with Mr. <name/> who identified him and signed at the back and put a Rubber stamp as well. And sure it had also been authorised to be encashed, by the accountant I paid it. I was familiar with <name/>'s handwriting and signature, so I paid one cheque. Cheque No. 136618 21.2.90. Payable to <name/> for Kshs. 20,000/= who also did not have the identification card, He came in the company of Mr. <name/> who also identified the payee to me, after this, I paid the Trader 20,000/=.
I paid the pension because there was an authorisation by the District Accountant and Mr. <name/> had identified the payee by signing and putting the official Rubber stamp.
Cheque 136615 name <name/> of 13.11.89. The payee did not come to my office in person. According to Mr. <name/> the payee had endorsed the cheque to be payable to the District trade Development office. So after the endorsement, Mr. <name/> had paid the payee from the Revenue collection of his office. So the cheque came into my possession as part of the District Development Revenues collection issued a receipt and a contra-cheque, for the Revenue collected by <name/>.
Cross examined by Accused:
Even by 1989 I was the acting District Cashier. 
My boss was <name/> the District Accountant. We normally encash pension and intentional cheques with authority. No cheque can be encashed without authority.
Payment can only be given on with authority of the DC, DOC, District Accountant or his assistant, by signing at the back of the cheque. A trade officer cannot give authority to cash the cheque.
His signature at the back is valid for identification. Your signature was valid because the pensions involved were traders. Socially I met you only a few times. I paid the traders without their ID cards because you identified them as being well known to you, because the cheques originated from your office and you <-/propossed> the cheques of this people. I had no reason to doubt you since you were a senior Government officer. You came with the traders to my office . The cheques had ID card numbers on the cheques but they did not produce the ID card. I did not ask you to sign twice and I cannot recollect whether you signed in my office or in the <-_accountants><+_accountant's> office. The fifth cheque was brought by yourself as part of your Revenue collections. This was not in order, but since it was authorised by the accountant I could not question him.
I know one <name/> a clinical officer in Isiolo but he is not the <name/> that you brought to me.
Re-examined by CP:
Yes I knew the accused very well and in the course of official duties Yes I was very familiar with his signature and handwriting, and he personally accompanied the payees and identified them.
<name/>
COURT
<-_Its><+_It's> 1230 p.m. the court has pleas to take therefore hearing to continue at 2.30 p.m.
<name/>
3.20 p.m.
Coram as above
P.W. 7 Adult male <-xtian> sworn states in English.
My name is <name/>. I am working at the DC's office Kitale as a District Accountant Before proceeding to Kitale I was in the DC's office Nakuru, Prior to this I was the District accountant in Isiolo.
I went to Isiolo. In 1987 and transferred <-/begining> 1990, i.e. May 1990. During my tenure at Isiolo I knew the accused i.e. Mr. <name/> as a trade officer. We interacted in the course of our duties. His cheque 136621 21.2.90 payable to one Mr. <name/>, for Kshs. 10,000/= drawn on Isiolo trade Development Joint board.
There are no signature, for the trade officer and the DC. 
At the back endorsed it for cash payment. Payee is identified by the trade officer I think this was before me. The cheque was brought by Mr. <name/>. He had presented it and requested that the <_/>the trader be paid cash. Mr. <name/> is that man (points) at the Accused). I asked him to endorse the cheque at the back and he did so. There is an ID No. on the cheque. At the time I was familiar with Mr. <name/>'s handwriting and I he must have endorsed it in my presence. I had no doubt since he was the one dealing with this particular account, so after endorsing I gave the cheque back to him. This cheque No. 136618 drawn on 21.2.90 the payee is Mr. <name/>. The amount is 20,000/= both words and figures, the cheque is authorised by the officers <-/capurating> that account. At the back I endorsed it for encashment. The cheque was presented to my by <name/> and he endorsed that the payee is know to me.
There is a signature and official rubber stamp for the District Trade Officer. The cheques were presented for payment at the bank. For me to endorse a cheque I have to know the payee or they must be known to some other officer. In the instant case they were known to the payees. On 23.8. 90 I gave my statement to the police. And that is the evidence I am now giving before this court.
Cross examined by Accused.
I went to Isiolo in 1987. I may not remember clearly whether I found you there or you found me there. I knew officially and as an individual. There were other accountants who could endorse, Cheques for cashing i.e. my deputies. Under special circumstances the DC or the DO could authorise. The DC was the overall boss and he would not have to call a meeting to inform us that he was authorising such payment. When I am authorising dealings with a departmental head I rely on him as long as I am satisfied that the cheque is properly drawn I <-/am> endorse it.
The cheque in question <-_were><+_was> properly drawn. I authorised the payment. You must have come to my office from the dates on the cheques it is possible that they were presented to me on the same dates.
I knew you as the person who had presented the cheques. I do not know <name/> on the cheque, that is why I asked you to identify him. Even if these people did not come with them I would endorse them since I was satisfied with you as someone known to me. I could have done the pace to any departmental near, you, signed the back in my presence. I do not know how the cashier paid. I do not know how the cashier paid the cheques. The cheques were properly drawn and you were one of the signatories so I could not suspect you of any foul play. It is possible that there are other cheques which I endorsed for you. The two cheques I have must have bounced at the first instance and honoured thereafter. I <-_dont><+_don't> recall whether the cheques came to me personally after they bounced.
They may have gone to <-/aother> officer. I had a deputy and assistant accountant and I had no reason to doubt them. It was <-/upto> the cashier how the payee identified himself at the point of actual payment. I had no reason to doubt you either I endorsed several cheques from other departmental heads.