Court of Appeal Kenya Archives - Insider Bits News

Equity Bank CEO Mwangi and his wife Suffers Major Blow in Bid to Retain Sh1 Billion Muthaiga Property

IB Reporter — Sun, 08 Feb 2026 09:35:29 +0000

Equity Bank Group CEO James Mwangi and his wife have suffered a major setback in their fight to retain a Sh1 billion property at Muthaiga after the Court of Appeal declined to halt a judgment that found they illegally acquired the prime land.

The appellate court has instead ordered the couple to deposit Sh10 million as security while maintaining the status quo on the 3.733-acre disputed property even as police have already handed it over to its rightful owner, Mount Pleasant Limited.
.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Judges Daniel Musinga (President), Pauline Otieno Kiage, and Olive Muchelule issued the order on February 4, 2026, following an application by the Mwangi and his wife Jane Wangui Mwangi seeking to halt the execution of the Environment and Land Court judgment that ordered them to vacate the land after finding that they had unlawfully acquired the multi-billion prime land pending the hearing and determination of their appeal in the Sh1 billion land dispute.

“The status quo with regard to the suit property shall be maintained pending hearing and determination of the appeal, which we direct that it be expedited,” the Musinga led bench ruled.

“The applicant shall deposit a sum of Sh10 Million in an interest earning account in the joint names of counsel for the appellant(Mwangi) and the 1st respondent(Mount Pleasant Limited) within sixty (60) days from today.”

The orders came after the property had already been handed over to Mount Pleasant Limited.

According to a police report dated January 7, 2026, from Gigiri Police Station, the Environment and Land Court order to the couple vacate the property had been executed under supervision of the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Gigiri, with Mount Pleasant Ltd gaining possession of the property.

“The above court order has been executed today the 07/01/2026 under supervision of the OCS Gigiri and now the plaintiff Mount Pleasant Ltd has now gained possession of the property,” stated Officer Commanding Police Station Jennifer Mutuku in the official police document.

Mwangi’s appeal follows a landmark judgment by Environment and Land Court Judge Oscar Angote delivered on October 23, 2025, which found that Mwangi and his wife had no legal claim to the prime Muthaiga property and had unlawfully taken possession of land belonging to Mount Pleasant Limited.

In his detailed 150-page ruling, Justice Angote found glaring irregularities in the documents presented by the couple, including missing volume references, unsigned land registry entries, and inconsistencies in file numbers, which rendered their alleged 2012 purchase from the late President Daniel arap Moi null and void.

Justice Angote declared that the land, originally registered as L.R 214/20/1/1 and L.R 214/20/2, and later irregularly amalgamated into L.R 214/832, belongs to a private company Mount Pleasant Limited, not Dr. Mwangi and his wife.

The judge ordered the couple to pay Sh10 million in general damages for trespass, with interest accruing from the date of judgment until full payment, and to vacate the property immediately under threat of police enforcement.

“An award does hereby issue of general damages for trespass, assessed at Sh 10 Million. The 1st and 2nd Defendants (Mwangi and his wife Wangui) to pay interest on the above amount at court rates from the date of this Judgment until payment in full. The 1st and 2nd Defendants’ counterclaim is dismissed with costs. The 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay the Plaintiff the costs of the suit,” Justice Angote ruled.

The decision restored ownership of the 3.733-acre property to Mount Pleasant Ltd, which traced its acquisition back to former Cabinet Minister Arthur Kinyanjui Magugu and his wife, Margaret.

According to company records, Mount Pleasant purchased the property in 2006 for Sh 130 million after the Magugus redeemed it from the National Bank of Kenya.

Dr. Mwangi, however, insisted that he legally purchased the same land in 2012 directly from the late President Moi for Sh320 million, presenting a conveyance allegedly executed by the former Head of State.

Mwangi claimed he had taken possession of the land and initiated amalgamation and survey approvals to consolidate the parcels.

But Justice Angote concluded that President Moi had lost ownership of the parcels back in 1982 when he transferred them to the Magugus, whose title was subsequently conveyed to Mount Pleasant Ltd.

“Any subsequent transaction purporting to return the property to Moi or to sell it again is null and void,” the ruling states.

The judgment highlighted glaring irregularities in the documents produced by Dr. Mwangi, including missing volume references, unsigned land-registry entries, and inconsistent file numbers, which the court found rendered the alleged 2013 conveyance invalid.

The court observed that any attempt to reassign the property to Mwangi and his wife after it had been legally transferred to the Magugus in 1982, and subsequently to Mount Pleasant Limited, was invalid.

Consequently, the Chief Land Registrar and the National Land Commission were directed to expunge Mwangi’s title and restore the original ownership to Mount Pleasant Ltd.

Justice Angote further issued a permanent injunction barring the defendants, or their agents, from accessing or dealing with the property and ordered immediate vacation of the premises. Police assistance was authorized to enforce the eviction if necessary.

The court also awarded Mount Pleasant Ltd in profits of Sh500,000 per month from the date of unlawful occupation.

The case had been filed in 2020 by Mount Pleasant Ltd’s director, Anverali Mohamed Karmeli Amershi, against Equity CEO Mwangi, his wife, and others.

In his testimony before court, Amershi recounted how the company purchased the land from the Magugus, who had redeemed it from the National Bank of Kenya following a mortgage default.

“Our purchase price was Sh130 million. We took possession in 2006 and have been in continuous occupation since then,” Amershi testified.

“The defendants claim to have bought the land in 2012, but they never produced valid documentation to support that.”

Amershi described repeated attempts by the Mwangi family to assert ownership, including alleged evictions of the company’s security personnel.

“This is not just about ownership; it’s about trespass and the unlawful takeover of property that does not belong to them,” he said.

Equity CEO Mwangi recounted his version of events in court, stating that he had purchased the property from the late President Moi in December 2012 and had paid a deposit of Sh32,060,000, with the balance of Sh200,000,000 completed thereafter.

He claimed that the former President personally “blessed” the sale at his Kabarnet Gardens residence.

“I conducted a search, verified all details, and completed a valuation before executing the agreement. By April 2013, the sale was complete,” Dr. Mwangi testified.

“We took possession, engaged security, and even constructed a boundary wall.”

However, the court noted that Mwangi failed to produce critical supporting documents, such as the alleged sale agreement with President Moi and evidence of payments for amalgamation and survey approvals.

The detailed judgment meticulously traced the ownership history of the parcels.Originally allocated to James Archibald Morrison during the colonial era, the land changed hands multiple times, ultimately being conveyed to the late President Moi by the 8th Duke of Portland’s estate in 1980.

Moi mortgaged the land to Standard Bank, which reconveyed it back to him in 1982 before selling it to the Magugus.

Mount Pleasant Ltd legally acquired the land from the Magugus in 2006, registering the transfer and paying all requisite stamp duties.

The company also applied for amalgamation of the two parcels and undertook sub-division approvals in compliance with Nairobi County regulations.

The Court of Appeal judges have listed Mwangi’s appeal for a case management conference within 30 days by which time the parties are expected to have filed their respective submissions, as well as their lists and bundles of authorities.

The post Equity Bank CEO Mwangi and his wife Suffers Major Blow in Bid to Retain Sh1 Billion Muthaiga Property appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Pride Inn, Bound by Religious Ban on Alcohol, Ordered to Pay Sh2.1 Million for Unpaid Drinks

IB Reporter — Sun, 08 Feb 2026 09:07:04 +0000

Pride Inn Limited, whose strict religious policy forbids handling alcoholic beverages, has been ordered by the Court of Appeal to pay Sh2,104,770 to Thatchmaanz Limited for supplying and managing alcohol at its Nairobi hotels.

The three-judge bench comprising Justices W. Karanja, K. M’Inoti, and L. Achode dismissed Pride Inn’s appeal in a ruling that exposes the tension between religious principles and commercial profit, finding that the hotel chain cannot escape debts from an arrangement it designed, approved, and profited from for seven months.

The judgment reveals how Pride Inn’s management devised an elaborate scheme to sell alcohol without physically handling it, allowing the company to boost revenues while theoretically maintaining its proprietors’ religious sensibilities.

But when payment became due, the hotel claimed the entire operation was unauthorized and illegal.

“The entire essence of this model was that the Defendant did not wish to handle the alcoholic beverages yet wanted to avail them to its customers and patrons,” the trial judge noted, capturing what critics may view as corporate hypocrisy dressed in religious garb.

The controversy began in early 2014 when Pride Inn’s strict no-alcohol policy created what the company acknowledged was a serious financial problem.

According to Anthony Ngunga, who served as Pride Inn’s Chief Executive Officer from February to December 2014, the religious restriction had “adversely affected its revenue streams.”

Court documents reveal that Ngunga held meetings with Pride Inn’s top leadership, including Chairman Shabir Kassam and Managing Director Hasnain Noorani, to discuss “the need to raise revenue for the appellant by allowing the sale of alcohol.”

The solution they crafted was ingenious in its attempt to split moral responsibility from financial benefit.

Rather than abandon their religious stance or continue losing money, Pride Inn’s board approved bringing in a third party to handle all physical aspects of alcohol sales.

Ngunga testified that he proposed Edward Ahn, director of Thatchmaanz Limited, who had experience in the bar and restaurant industry.

In April 2014, a meeting attended by Pride Inn’s Managing Director sealed the arrangement.

Under the oral agreement, Thatchmaanz would supply alcoholic beverages to Pride Inn’s Nairobi hotels, construct and operate bars, hire staff, and bill the hotel directly for alcohol consumed by customers.

Pride Inn would impose a service charge on sales but would not touch the bottles or handle the money directly.

The contract was to run for three years, from May 2014 to May 2017, with renewal provisions to allow Thatchmaanz to recover its investment in bar construction and equipment.

The Operation: Bars, Staff, and Booming Business

Thatchmaanz moved quickly. By the end of May 2014, the company had established a complete bar unit at Pride Inn’s Lantana Road location, stocked all Nairobi outlets with alcoholic beverages, and engaged qualified bar staff.

Operations commenced with what appeared to be full approval from Pride Inn’s management.

The business model seemed designed to satisfy everyone.

Pride Inn’s proprietors could claim they didn’t “handle” alcohol while their hotels offered comprehensive bar services to customers.

Thatchmaanz would build a steady supply relationship with a premium hotel chain. Customers would enjoy drinks at Pride Inn establishments.

Moses Mahavi, who worked as Bar Manager for Thatchmaanz, testified that his duties included ensuring supply of alcoholic beverages whenever needed by Pride Inn’s hotels and restaurants.

“The appellant also required the respondent to supply alcoholic beverages to any of its guests outside of the main hotel premises, who required it, through the outside catering offered by the appellant,” he stated.

Evidence showed that suppliers delivered alcoholic beverages directly to Pride Inn’s premises, where they were verified by the hotel’s security officers who issued gate passes. Hotel staff conducted further verification.

The entire operation was integrated into Pride Inn’s business, from security protocols to customer service.

Michael Kimitho Kamau, Pride Inn’s General Manager at the time, corroborated this account.

He testified that he was “aware that the directors of Pride Inn Hotels were in discussions to allow the sale of alcohol in the Nairobi units” and that “they entered into an agreement to allow an independent vendor to supply the alcohol to be sold in the units and in turn to be paid independently by the Hotel.”

When the Money Stopped Flowing

The first signs of trouble emerged in July 2014,just two months into operations.

Despite alcohol flowing freely at Pride Inn establishments and revenue presumably increasing, invoices dating from May 19, 2014, remained unpaid.

Edward Ahn testified that he contacted Ngunga to query why payments had not been made despite repeated assurances.

Ngunga met with Kamau and requested him to prepare all invoices and send them to Pride Inn’s financial controller for “prompt settlement.” The settlement never came.

By November 2014, with debts mounting and patience exhausted, Thatchmaanz threatened to terminate the arrangement. Ngunga asked Ahn to reconsider.

In December 2014, a crucial meeting was held at Pride Inn’s Westlands office, attended by the hotel’s Managing Director Noorani, Chief Finance Officer, Ahn, and Ngunga.

According to testimony, the meeting resolved that outstanding invoices totaling approximately Sh1,500,000 would be settled within one week, and Thatchmaanz would continue supplying alcoholic drinks and running the bars.

On December 2, 2014, just days after this meeting, Ngunga ceased employment with Pride Inn. The promised payment never materialized.

On December 16, 2014, Pride Inn made a partial payment of Sh322,200 by cheque,an amount that would later prove crucial in establishing the hotel’s acknowledgment of the debt. But that was all Thatchmaanz would receive.

By the time operations ceased, unpaid invoices totaled Sh2,104,770. Thatchmaanz had also invested Sh1,000,000 in bar construction and equipment, plus Sh648,000 in staff salaries.

The Defense: “We Never Authorized This”

When sued in the High Court, Pride Inn mounted a defense that struck at the foundations of the arrangement its own board had approved.

The hotel claimed any purported contract with Thatchmaanz was undertaken without company authority and could not bind it.

Nicholas Ochieng, Pride Inn’s General Manager, provided the company’s official position: “It was the company’s policy not to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages in any of its hotel branches and at no point did the company obtain a license as required by law to sell alcoholic beverages in its premises as alleged by the respondent.”

He added that if Thatchmaanz had entered into an oral contract with Ngunga, “then that was a private agreement that the company was not privy to and therefore, is not bound by it.”

Pride Inn also invoked the legal doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio—the principle that courts should not enforce illegal contracts.

The hotel argued the arrangement was illegal because its premises were not licensed to sell alcohol under the Nairobi City County Alcoholic Drinks Control and Licensing Act, 2014.

The irony was sharp: Pride Inn was simultaneously claiming it never authorized alcohol sales while arguing those very sales were illegal.

The Inconvenient Evidence

Pride Inn’s defense faced several devastating problems. First, the hotel conspicuously failed to call Managing Director Hasnain Noorani to testify, despite him being identified as a key participant in the April 2014 meeting that birthed the arrangement and the December 2014 meeting that promised payment.

“The unrebutted testimonies of PW1 and PW2, coupled with evidence of performance including the establishment of the bar complete with barmen, stocking of beverages, and a part-payment in the form of a cheque of Kshs. 322,000 issued by the appellant, support the existence of an oral agreement,” the Court of Appeal noted.

Second, evidence showed that Pride Inn’s own General Manager, Kamau, had visited Nairobi City Hall in May 2014 to obtain licenses for the units to sell alcohol.

He paid inspection fees and received a receipt dated February 4, 2015. Kamau testified that they were told the Alcohol Licensing Board had not yet been formed but were advised to pay fees and proceed with sales pending the Board’s appointment.

Third, the partial payment of Sh322,200 contradicted Pride Inn’s claim of non-authorization.

Courts recognize that partial payment typically constitutes acknowledgment of debt.

Fourth, and perhaps most damning, Thatchmaanz presented evidence that after terminating the arrangement, Pride Inn hired Thatchmaanz’s former Bar Manager, Moses Mahavi, to continue running the bar at Lantana Road. Ahn testified that “the appellant continues to operate the business of selling alcoholic drinks.”

This evidence painted a picture of a company that approved alcohol sales at the highest level, benefited from them financially, made partial payment acknowledging the debt, continued the business after the dispute—but refused to pay the supplier who made it all possible.

The Court’s Verdict: You Can’t Have It Both Ways

The High Court, presided over by Justice Tuiyott, ruled in favor of Thatchmaanz in February 2019, awarding Sh2,104,770 plus interest. Pride Inn appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The appellate judges began by addressing whether a valid contract existed.

They outlined requirements for oral contracts: valid and legally enforceable terms, essential elements like offer and acceptance, and compliance with laws and regulations.

“Going by the conduct of the parties herein, and having regard to the common course of natural events and human conduct in relation to the prevailing facts of this particular case, we are convinced that there was an orally binding contract between the appellant and the respondent,” the Court of Appeal declared.

The judges found that the arrangement was not a conventional sale of goods but rather “a hybrid commercial arrangement – a service and supply contract, designed to allow the appellant to offer alcohol to patrons without violating its internal restrictions.”

This finding rejected Pride Inn’s argument that the Sale of Goods Act applied and had been violated.

On the illegality argument, the court was equally unimpressed.

“The duty to obtain the licence lay with the appellant, since the sale occurred within its premises and for the benefit of its clientele,” the judges ruled.

They noted that Pride Inn’s own General Manager had taken steps to obtain licenses, and that Section 56(b) of the relevant Act allowed a nine-month transitional period for compliance.

The County Government had allowed Pride Inn to proceed with sales pending appointment of the Licensing Board.

“In our view, the appellant cannot rely on the doctrine of ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio’ where it has been proved that the duty was upon it to ensure that it had obtained the licence before it allowed the sale of alcoholic beverages in its premises,” the court stated.

The judges characterized the absence of a license as “a regulatory lapse for which the appellant bore responsibility” rather than fundamental illegality that would void the contract.

The Message: Religious Principles Don’t Trump Legal Obligations

The Court of Appeal’s ruling sends a clear message about corporate accountability. Companies cannot structure elaborate arrangements to achieve moral distance from activities their principles prohibit, profit substantially from those activities, and then invoke those same principles to escape financial obligations.

The judgment also addresses the limits of the ex turpi causa defense. A party cannot claim a contract is illegal due to missing licenses when that party bore the duty to obtain those licenses, took steps to do so, and was given transitional permission by authorities.

On damages, the court found that Thatchmaanz had “not only pleaded special damages but also strictly proved them” through unpaid invoices totaling Sh2,104,770 covering the period from May to December 2014.

Pride Inn’s final gambit, attempting to hold Anthony Ngunga personally liable through third-party proceedings also failed.

The court noted that Pride Inn had sought leave to serve the third-party notice by substituted service but never filed the required application or effected service.

“There is no evidence that third-party proceedings were prosecuted in the trial court,” the judges observed.

Pride Inn Limited has been ordered to pay the full judgment amount of Sh2,104,770 plus costs and interest to Thatchmaanz Limited, bringing closure to a dispute that began when the hotel’s bar taps were flowing but its payments had run dry.

The post Pride Inn, Bound by Religious Ban on Alcohol, Ordered to Pay Sh2.1 Million for Unpaid Drinks appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Anglo Leasing: Kamani Brothers Clash with DPP Over Attempt to Stall Graft Proceedings

IB Reporter — Wed, 04 Feb 2026 21:00:08 +0000

The decades-old Anglo Leasing scandal has taken another dramatic turn as two accused businessmen mount a fresh bit to halt their criminal trial, a move that has drawn fierce opposition from the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Rashmi Chamanlal Kamani and Deepak Kumar Kamani have petitioned the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn a High Court decision that placed them on their defence after prosecutors established a prima facie case against them.

The duo wants the appellate court to conduct what they describe as an independent and comprehensive review of the lower court’s ruling.

However, Director of Public Prosecutions Renson Ingonga has firmly resisted the application, arguing that the trial must proceed without interruption.

Through Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Jami Yamina, the prosecution has maintained that allowing such a review would undermine the integrity of the ongoing trial.

“There are sufficient procedural and evidential safeguards available to the applicants should they proceed to mount their defence, including invoking their right to remain silent if they believe they would otherwise be required to fill gaps in the prosecution’s case,” Yamina submitted to the court.

The DPP’s office contends that such a review by the appellate court would prejudice the trial court’s ability to make independent findings.

Yamina emphasized that the High Court should not be faulted for not providing full reasoning at this stage, as doing so would equally compromise the trial court’s capacity to independently evaluate the evidence.

Yamina further argued that the applicants had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would justify halting the proceedings, and urged the Court of Appeal to dismiss the application and allow the trial to run its full course.

The current legal battle stems from a January 19, 2024 ruling by a trial magistrate who had acquitted all accused persons, finding that prosecutors had not established a prima facie case.

The DPP challenged this decision, and Justice Benjamin Musyoki of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division subsequently set aside the acquittal, determining that the evidence did warrant placing the accused on their defence.

Justice Musyoki directed that the matter be mentioned before the Anti-Corruption Chief Magistrate’s Court on August 7, 2025, with all accused persons required to appear in person.

The case involves a roster of former high-ranking government officials and businessmen accused of orchestrating one of Kenya’s most notorious corruption scandals.

Among the accused are former Finance Minister David Mwiraria (now deceased), Dave Munya Mwangi (former Permanent Secretary in the Office of the President), Joseph Mbui Magari (former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance), and David Lumumba Onyonka.

The Kamani family members Rashmi Chamanlal Kamani, Deepak Kumar Kamani, and their late father Chamanlal Vrajlal Kamani, also face serious allegations.

At the heart of the case is an allegation that the accused conspired to defraud the Government of Kenya of 40 million Euros through a purported Supplier’s Credit Agreement for the modernization of police security equipment and accessories, dated December 17, 2003.

The offences allegedly occurred between October 30, 2003, and April 14, 2004, in Nairobi.

The three Kamani family members face an additional charge of fraudulent acquisition of public property.

According to court records, on or about April 14, 2004, they allegedly received 1.2 million Euros from the Ministry of Finance under false pretenses, claiming to finance the police modernization project through offshore accounts in Switzerland held under Apex Finance Corporation Ltd. and Apex Finance International Corporation Ltd.

The late Mwiraria, along with Mwangi, Magari, and Onyonka, face distinct charges including engaging in a project without prior planning, willfully failing to follow procurement laws, and abuse of office.

All accused persons entered not guilty pleas when initially arraigned.

The prosecution called 37 witnesses during the trial proceedings.

However, in January, the trial court determined that the evidence presented was insufficient and acquitted all the accused under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Dissatisfied with this outcome, the DPP filed an appeal on January 29, 2024.

Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions George Mong’are argued that the trial magistrate had erred by failing to properly assess the evidence, which he maintained established a case warranting the accused to be placed on their defence.

The Anglo Leasing scandal, which dates back more than two decades, remains one of the most significant corruption cases in Kenya’s history, involving allegations of fraudulent contracts worth hundreds of millions of euros for security-related projects that were either never delivered or grossly overpriced.

The post Anglo Leasing: Kamani Brothers Clash with DPP Over Attempt to Stall Graft Proceedings appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Court frees six jailed in Ex-MP George Thuo murder case on Sh1m bond

IB Reporter — Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:50:57 +0000

The Court of Appeal has freed six people jailed for murdering former Juja MP George Thuo on Sh1 million bond each, pending the determination of their appeals against conviction and a 15-year jail term.

In a decision delivered in Nairobi, appellate judges Jamila Mohammed, Francis Tuiyott and Pauline Nyamweya granted bail to Thika-based Porkies Club owner Paul Wainaina Boiyo alias Sheki and his five employees Christopher Lumbazio Andika alias Lumba, Samuel Kuria Ngugi alias Visi, Esther Ndinda Mulinge, Ruth Watahi Irungu alias Atlanta and Andrew Karanja Wainaina.

” This Court is inclined to allow the applications as prayed. Each of the six applicants will now be released on a bond of Sh1 million with one surety of a similar amount, pending the hearing and determination of their appeals against both conviction and sentence,” Judges Jamila,Tuiyott, Nyamweya ordered.

The six were convicted by High Court Judge Roselyne Korir on April 19, 2024 for the murder of Thuo, who collapsed after allegedly consuming a poisoned drink at Porkies Club in Thika in 2013.

They were later sentenced to 15 years in prison on June 19, 2024.

Aggrieved by their conviction and 15-year jail terms, the six moved to the Court of Appeal through separate applications, which were later consolidated seeking to be admitted to bail pending the hearing of their appeals.

Their lawyers also pointed to favourable pre-sentence probation reports and stressed that all the accused had faithfully complied with bond terms and attended court throughout the nearly 10-year trial at the High Court.

They contended that the High Court erred in law and fact by relying entirely on circumstantial evidence and mere suspicion to find them guilty of murdering former Juja MP Thuo.

In their filings, they argued that the trial judge built the conviction on four different and conflicting theories on how the alleged poisoning occurred, without conclusively proving any of them.

They further complained that the prosecution had failed to prove the key ingredients of murder, including common intention and a clear link between any of them and the alleged poisoning.

“We were convicted on the basis of conjecture rather than evidence,” they argued, insisting that the judgment of the superior court was unsafe

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did not oppose the bail applications, a factor the court treated as significant.

Senior Assistant DPP Mr Omondi conceded that the appeals raise very valid, weighty and tangible matters of law regarding a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence and that there was an overwhelming likelihood of success in the appeals.

The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution’s concession, coupled with the legal issues raised and the risk that the applicants could serve a substantial part of their 15-year terms before their appeals are heard, amounted to exceptional circumstances.

The three judges reiterated that bail after conviction is not automatic and is only granted in rare and exceptional circumstances, since convicts no longer enjoy the presumption of innocence.

But in its decision the Court of Appeal found that their convictions were based on shaky ground.

The judges said the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and that the trial court had relied on multiple, conflicting theories on how the alleged poisoning occurred, without firmly establishing any of them.

“Without attempting to determine the appeals, we think that there is merit in the arguments by the applicants that they were convicted on four different and distinct sets of facts that were purely circumstantial,” the bench observed.

They highlighted contradictions in the trial court’s findings, pointing out that while there was evidence that four of the applicants had shared a table with Thuo on the fateful night, there was no direct proof that any of them poisoned his drink.

“While there was evidence that four of the applicants shared a table with the deceased on the fateful night, there was no evidence that the four laced the deceased’s drink with poison,” the Judges stated.

The judges further note that this version was not consistent with the trial court’s own conclusion that a fifth person, a waitress also also had access to Thuo’s drink by virtue of serving him, and yet another scenario in which one of the accused allegedly bought beer at the counter and handed it directly to the deceased.

“In addition, again as conceded by counsel for the State, there was no evidence that the applicants hatched a common intention, before or during the commission of the alleged crime, to kill the deceased,” the three judge bench added.

Against that backdrop, the Court of Appeal found that the conviction could not, at this stage, be said to rest on a firm evidentiary foundation, and that the issues raised on appeal were weighty enough to justify releasing the six on bond as they challenge both the findings of guilt and the 15-year sentences imposed on them.

The post Court frees six jailed in Ex-MP George Thuo murder case on Sh1m bond appeared first on Insider Bits News.