The High Court has upheld the conviction and 24-year prison sentences imposed on two men found guilty of trafficking 161.75 kilograms of cannabis worth KSh4.85 million, ruling that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In a judgment delivered by Justice J. Wakiaga at the High Court in Makadara, the court dismissed appeals filed by Daniel Gor John and Hussein Otita Wakha Yanga, who had sought to overturn their convictions and sentences arising from a 2023 drug trafficking case.
The two had been convicted by the Chief Magistrate’s Court at JKIA after they were found transporting 161.75 kilograms of cannabis along the Nakuru-Nairobi Highway in South Kinangop, Nyandarua County.
The trial court sentenced each of them to 24 years in prison and imposed a fine of KSh50 million. Daniel Gor John was also convicted on an additional charge of giving false information to a police officer after providing an identity card number that belonged to another person.
In their appeals, the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. They maintained that they had been mistakenly arrested and that there was no direct evidence linking them to the narcotic drugs or the vehicle in which the drugs were recovered. They further argued that investigators failed to comply with statutory procedures governing the seizure of narcotic drugs and faulted the prosecution for failing to call key witnesses, including the officer who valued the drugs.
The appellants also challenged the reliance on circumstantial evidence, arguing that there was no forensic evidence connecting them to either the vehicle or the cannabis.
However, Justice Wakiaga found that the evidence presented during the trial sufficiently established that the two were conveying the narcotics when police intercepted them. The judge noted that police officers had acted on intelligence reports about a vehicle transporting drugs along the Nairobi-Nakuru Highway. Officers mounted a roadblock by creating an artificial traffic jam, prompting the suspects’ vehicle to make a U-turn before its occupants abandoned it and fled on foot.
The court found that both appellants were arrested shortly after fleeing the vehicle and were positively linked to the recovery.
“It was proved through the evidence on record that the recovered items were drugs within the meaning of the Act,” the judge held.
“The appellants were in the process of conveying the said narcotics in motor vehicle registration number KCS 679P along the Nakuru-Nairobi Highway when they were intercepted and, having been placed at the scene, I am satisfied that the prosecution case was proved beyond any reasonable doubt.”
Justice Wakiaga rejected the appellants’ claim that they had merely been innocent bystanders who were wrongly arrested. The first appellant had claimed he had travelled to the area to purchase vegetables, while the second appellant said he had gone to assist in repairing his brother’s vehicle. The judge found both explanations unconvincing. He observed that the second appellant failed to call the alleged mechanic who accompanied him, while the first appellant did not call the woman from whom he claimed he was purchasing maize to support his account.
“I am therefore not persuaded by the appellants’ submission that they were mistakenly arrested and find and hold that they were both in the said car and therefore had control thereof and possession of the drugs recovered therefrom,” the judge ruled.
The court also upheld Daniel Gor John’s conviction for giving false information to a police officer after finding that he knowingly provided a false national identity card number during his arrest.
On sentencing, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s decision. Justice Wakiaga observed that under Section 4(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act, drug trafficking attracts a penalty of life imprisonment in addition to a hefty fine.
He agreed with the prosecution that the 24-year prison term imposed by the trial court was, in fact, lenient given the seriousness of the offence.
“The sentence was not harsh,” the judge held, noting that the punishment fell well within the law.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed both appeals in their entirety, affirming both the convictions and the sentences while informing the appellants of their right to pursue a further appeal.
