1. The Appellant, Davis Kipngeno Yegon , was charged before the Chief Magistrate's Court at Kericho with six (6) counts relating to corruption, forgery, and related offences. The charges arose from an incident on 31 st July, 2018, when the Appellant, a public officer employed by the Bomet County Government, allegedly presented a fake Master's Degree Certificate in Business Administration (Marketing) purportedly issued by Egerton University to the Bomet County Public Service Board during an interview for the position of Assistant Director Procurement.
2. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to all counts on 11 th November, 2020. After a full trial in which the prosecution called twelve (12) witnesses and produced numerous documentary exhibits, the learned trial magistrate (Hon. S.M. Mokua, CM) delivered a judgment on 19th October, 2021, convicting the Appellant on all six counts. The Appellant was sentenced to pay a cumulative fine of Kshs. 900,000/= , in default to serve one (1) year imprisonment. The fines were structured as follows:
· Counts 1-4: Kshs. 200,000/= each, in default 1 year imprisonment per count
· Counts 5-6: Kshs. 50,000/= each, in default 1 year imprisonment per count
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said conviction, the Appellant lodged the instant appeal through a Notice of Appeal filed shortly after the judgment. The appeal is solely against the conviction, and the Appellant does not challenge the sentence imposed by the trial court.
4. The Appellant faced the following six (6) counts before the trial court;
Count I : Deceiving a public entity contrary to section 46(1)(b) as read with section 46(2) of the Leadership and Integrity Act, Cap 182 Laws of Kenya. The particulars were that on 31 st July, 2018, at Bomet County, being a public officer, the Appellant knowingly deceived Bomet County Public Service Board by stating that he had a Master's Certificate in Business Administration (Marketing) purported to have been awarded to him by Egerton University on 9 th December, 2016.
Count II : Providing false information to a public entity contrary to section 46(1)(d) as read with section 46(2) of the Leadership and Integrity Act. The particulars were that on the same date and place, being a public officer, the Appellant knowingly provided false information to Bomet County Public Service Board by stating that he had a Master's Certificate in Business Administration (Marketing) purporting it to have been awarded to him by Egerton University on 9 th December, 2016.
Count III : Making a false statement to a principal contrary to section 41(1) as read with section 48 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA) . The particulars were that on the same date and place, being a public officer, the Appellant knowingly gave a false statement to his principal, the Bomet County Public Service Board, by stating that he had a Master's Certificate in Business Administration (Marketing) purporting it to have been awarded to him by Egerton University on 9 th December, 2016.
Count IV : Giving a false document to a principal contrary to section 41(2) as read with section 48 of ACECA. The particulars were that on the same date and place, being a public officer, the Appellant knowingly gave to his principal, the Bomet County Public Service Board, a false Master's Certificate in Business Administration (Marketing) purporting it to have been awarded to him by Egerton University on 9 th December, 2016.
Count V : Forgery contrary to section 349 of the Penal Code. The particulars were that on unknown dates and at some unknown place within the Republic of Kenya, jointly with others not before court, the Appellant willfully and with intent to deceive, forged a Master's Certificate in Business Administration (Marketing) purporting it to be a Master's Certificate from Egerton University.
Count VI : Uttering a false document contrary to section 353 of the Penal Code. The particulars were that on the same date and place, jointly with others not before court, the Appellant fraudulently and with intent to deceive, knowingly uttered a Master's Certificate in Business Administration (Marketing) purporting it to be a Master's Certificate from Egerton University, a fact he knew was not true.
5. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to all counts, and his plea was duly entered by the trial court. He was released on bond terms of Kshs. 1,000,000/= with a surety of similar amount, or alternative cash bail of Kshs. 400,000/=.
6. The Appellant filed a Petition of Appeal dated 1 st November, 2021, setting out seven (7) distinct grounds of appeal which I have keenly perused.
7. The Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed, the conviction be quashed, and the sentence be set aside.
8. The appeal was admitted to hearing before a single judge of this court on 27 th November, 2025. The court directed the parties to file and exchange written submissions within thirty (30) days. Both parties complied with these directions, filing their respective submissions though later than the stipulated time.
9. The prosecution's case was built around the recruitment process for the position of Assistant Director Procurement conducted by the Bomet County Public Service Board. A total of twelve (12) witnesses testified, and numerous documents were produced in evidence.
10. PW1 - Joshua Kipkoech Terer was the former Chairperson of the Bomet County Public Service Board, having served for six years until his retirement in July 2019. He testified that on 14 th February, 2018, the Board advertised the position of Assistant Director Procurement through print and digital media. The advertisement appeared in the Star Newspaper of 14 th February, 2018 (page 33), and was marked as PMFI-1. The minimum requirements included a Bachelor's degree in Supply Chain Management, a Master's degree in a relevant discipline, membership in a professional body (Kenya Institute of Supplies Management), five years' experience, and a Public Practitioner's licence.
11. According to PW1, applications were received online through the County portal. Shortlisted candidates were notified through print media on 25 th July, 2018 (PMFI-3). The shortlist was also published on the County portal. An extract showing the shortlisted candidates (PMFI-4) revealed that the Appellant's name appeared as the first candidate for the Assistant Director position.
12. The interview was scheduled for 31 st July, 2018. Candidates were required to sign an attendance sheet (PMFI-5), which showed four candidates with the Appellant being number one on the list. Candidates were also required to fill a declaration form (P. Exhibit 6) listing the documents they intended to rely on and declaring their authenticity.
13. PW1 testified that the Appellant presented several documents, including a Master's Degree certificate purportedly from Egerton University (P. Exhibit 7). Based on this document, the Appellant was awarded marks. PW1 produced his score sheet as P. Exhibit 9. However, before the appointment could be made, the Board received an anonymous tip-off that the certificate might be fake. The Board wrote to Egerton University for verification on 22 nd August, 2018 (PMFI-10) and received a response on 23 rd August, 2018 (PMFI-11) indicating that the certificate was not genuine. The matter was then referred to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) for investigation on 12 th September, 2018 (PMFI-12).
14. Under cross-examination, PW1 made several important concessions;
· He admitted that he could not remember whether transcripts were submitted.
· He confirmed that copies of transcripts had not been availed in court.
· He stated that verification could only be conducted after the interview.
· He admitted that he could not specify the exact time when the Board learned of the fake nature of the documents.
· Critically, he admitted that he could not tell before whom the declaration form (P. Exhibit 6) was signed. He stated that the form was signed in the presence of the secretariat, but he did not know who processed the candidates or in whose presence the form was actually signed.
15. PW2 - Eunice Cherono Benson was the Vice Chairperson of the Bomet County Public Service Board, having retired in June 2019. Her role involved deputizing the Chair in training and recruitment matters. She confirmed the advertisement and the shortlisting process. She testified that she was a panelist during the interviews and personally saw the Appellant's Master's degree certificate. She identified a copy of the certificate as PMFI-7 (later P. Exhibit 7). She also saw his Bachelor's certificate (PMFI-8a), KCSE certificate (PMFI-8b), and KCPE certificate (PMFI-8c).
16. PW2 described the scoring system; KCSE (5 points), Bachelor's Degree (10 points), Master's Degree (15 points). She scored the Appellant 79 marks and produced her score sheet as P. Exhibit 13. She confirmed that the Appellant passed the interview, though she did not recall him being notified of the outcome.
17. Under cross-examination, PW2 stated;
· She recalled that the Appellant presented four documents at the interview, including a Master's degree and transcripts from Egerton University.
· She was not aware if those transcripts had been availed in court.
· She confirmed that the office of the secretary received copies that had been submitted online, and shortlisting was done in a meeting.
· She confirmed that the Appellant was an employee of Bomet County at the time of the interview.
· She stated that the anonymous information about the fake certificate came from the public domain during the time of the interviews.
· She could not name the officer who witnessed the execution of the declaration form.
18. It is noteworthy that PW2's testimony that the Appellant submitted transcripts from Egerton University directly contradicted PW1's testimony that no transcripts were submitted. This contradiction was never resolved by the prosecution.
19. PW3 - Justus Kibet Langat was a member of the Board and a panelist. He testified that he filled his score sheet on 31 st July, 2018, awarding the Appellant 84 marks. He produced his score sheet as P. Exhibit 14. Under cross-examination, he admitted that the score sheet did not indicate which university issued the Master's degree. He also admitted that he did not see transcripts from Kenyatta University.
20. PW4 - Pastor Joseph Kipkurui Rono was a pastor, farmer, and Board member. He testified that he saw the Appellant's academic documents, including the Master's degree certificate. He produced his score sheet as P. Exhibit 15. Under cross-examination, he admitted that the application form did not indicate the university from which the Master's degree was earned.
21. PW5 - Judith Chepngetich Siele was a former Board member from 2013 to 2019. She testified that before awarding scores, she perused the original documents. She scored the Appellant 89 marks and produced her score sheet as P. Exhibit 16. Under cross-examination, she confirmed that all board members checked the documents, but she could not name the officer who witnessed the execution of the declaration form.
22. PW6 - Professor James Kiprop Tuitoek was a former lecturer at Egerton University from 1989 to 2019. He served as Vice Chancellor from January 2006 to January 2016. His role included being Chairman of the University Senate, responsible for admissions, curriculum approval, student progression, and approving the graduation list.
23. PW6 explained the certificate issuance process; once the Senate approves a student, the name is sent to the University Council for inclusion in the graduation list. The Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic Affairs), and Registrar (Academic Affairs) then sign the certificates.
24. PW6 stated that his term ended on 12 th January, 2016, and he handed over to Professor Rose Mwonya. From that day, he ceased being a signatory to university certificates.
25. On 2 nd February, 2019, EACC officers visited him and requested verification of a certificate in their possession. He was shown a certificate (P. Exhibit 7), a Master's Degree in Business Administration (Marketing option), purportedly from Egerton University, issued on 9 th December, 2016.
26. PW6 noted several anomalies;
· Signatory Issue; The certificate was issued on 9 th December, 2016, but he had handed over the Vice Chancellor position on 12 th January, 2016. Therefore, he should not have been a signatory. However, the certificate bore a signature that looked like his.
· Admission Number; The certificate bore admission serial number CM 11/200236/16. Normally, admission numbers are assigned based on the year of joining. The number "16" suggested the student joined in 2016 and graduated in the same year. Admissions typically happen in September, and graduations in December of the same year. He noted that the first student admission serial for that program should have been CM11/2001. The number on the certificate (200236) far exceeded the normal admission range for the MBA program.
· Impossible Timeline; It was impossible for a student admitted in September 2016 to graduate in December 2016, as the MBA program takes two years.
· No MBA Marketing Option in 2014; Crucially, in 2014, while he was still Vice Chancellor, the university did not admit students for the MBA (Marketing option) because they could not meet the required quorum. Therefore, it would have been impossible for a student admitted in 2014 to graduate in 2016 with that specialization.
· Graduation Booklet; He examined the graduation booklet for 2016. In the Faculty of Commerce section, there were 20 MBA candidates, 5 in Finance and 2 in Human Resource. There was no "Marketing" option listed. The Appellant's name did not appear anywhere. The booklet was produced as P. Exhibit 17.
27. Under cross-examination, PW6 admitted that he could not confirm whether the certificate shown to him was an original or a copy. He also stated that he was not aware if the Appellant had ever sought verification from the university himself.
28. PW7 - Seth Fredrick Ochieng Omollo was the Academic Registrar at Egerton University. He confirmed that he kept records of students up to graduation. He examined the certificate and noted that the registration number was irregular, the signature font was not what the university used, and the signature appeared to have been lifted by a computer. He confirmed that the university did not offer MBA (Marketing) option in 2016.
29. PW8 - Mwana Amisi Said was the Deputy Registrar in 2016. Her role included maintaining students' records and processing certificates. She confirmed that the certificate did not originate from Egerton University. She noted that an MBA degree normally takes two years, but the Appellant's certificate showed admission in 2016 and graduation in the same year. Further, there were no students admitted to the MBA (Marketing) option during that period.
30. PW9 - Philip Kipkurui Tanui was the Secretary to the Bomet County Public Service Board. His role included taking minutes during Board sittings. He confirmed that the Appellant was an employee of Bomet County Government. He produced various documents from the Appellant's personal file, including:
· Letter of appointment (P. Exhibit 18a)
· Application form for employment (P. Exhibit 18b)
· Payroll documents
· KRA PIN certificate
· Correspondence between Bomet County and Egerton
University
· Letter from Board to EACC (P. Exhibits 10, 11, and 12)
31. Under cross-examination, PW9 stated that he only received copies of the documents submitted by the Appellant, including the impugned certificate, from the Board's Chair. He could not name the person who witnessed the execution of the declaration form. Crucially, PW9 admitted that the Appellant had declared to his employer (Bomet County Government) that he was a graduand of Kenyatta University-MBA.
32. PW10 - Professor Ruth Awuor Mwonya was the Vice Chancellor who succeeded PW6 on 12 th January, 2016. She examined the certificate and confirmed it was not issued by the university. She explained that the university applies signatures electronically after verification, but the signature on the certificate was irregular.
33. PW11 - Stephen K. Yego was a forensic document examiner with the EACC. He had been a government forensic examiner since 2009 and joined EACC in 2015. His duties included examination of handwriting and signatures. On 20 th March, 2019, he received documents from PW12 for examination. These included; A1: A letterhead of the County Government of Bomet Public Service Board with details of the Appellant, A2: A letterhead from the County Government of Bomet dated 31 st August, 2018 and B1 – B4: Specimen handwriting and signatures of the Appellant.
34. His examination revealed that the handwriting and signatures on A1 and A2 matched the specimens. He produced his report dated 30 th March, 2019 as P. Exhibit 21. On 17 th December, 2019, he received further exhibits, including; A3: A certified copy of the Master's degree certificate (P. Exhibit 7), B4 – B5: Specimen handwriting of Professor James Tuitoek, B6 – B8: Specimen handwriting and signatures of Professor Rose Mwonya and B9 – B10: Specimen handwriting and signatures of Seth Fredrick Owino.
35. His examination revealed that the signatures on the certificate matched the specimens of the respective individuals. However, he noted that the signatures on the certificate were electronically generated and not physically signed. He produced his second report dated 24 th December, 2019 as P. Exhibit 22.
36. Under cross-examination, PW11 made significant concessions; He admitted that there were variations between the specimen and the questioned documents. When pressed on specific variations, he could not highlight them in detail.
37. PW12 - Roseline Atieno Omondi was the investigating officer from EACC, having joined in 2015. The investigation began following the letter from the Board dated 12 th September, 2018.
38. PW12 testified that she wrote to various institutions to verify the Appellant's academic documents;
KNEC: Confirmed KCPE and KCSE certificates were genuine. She produced the report as P. Exhibit 31 and the certificates as P. Exhibits 8b and 8c.
Moi University: Confirmed the Bachelor's degree was genuine. She produced the response as P. Exhibit 34 and the certificate as P. Exhibit 8a.
Kabianga University: Confirmed records, as a constituent of Moi University. She produced letters as P. Exhibits 32, 33, and 35.
Egerton University: Responded that the certificate did not originate from them. She produced the letter from EACC to Egerton as P. Exhibit 36 and the response as P. Exhibit 37.
39. PW12 obtained the contents of the Appellant's personal file from the Board, including his letter of appointment, biodata form, deployment letter, pay slips, and a letter from the Appellant to HR dated 20 th April, 2015 (P. Exhibit 30). The enclosures in that letter included a copy of the Master's degree certificate, which was certified by the Board secretary and produced as P. Exhibit 7.
40. PW12 testified that when she interviewed the Appellant, he denied submitting the Egerton University certificate and instead claimed he was pursuing a Master's degree at Kenyatta University. He provided an admission letter dated January, 2013 (P. Exhibit 39) and provisional academic transcripts dated 8 th June, 2015 (P. Exhibits 40a–40c).
41. Under cross-examination, PW12 made crucial admissions; She could not identify the person who witnessed the execution of the declaration form. She admitted that she never checked the documents the Appellant submitted online. She conceded that the EACC declaration form cited in the data capture form would ordinarily set out the documents submitted by an applicant. She confirmed that no transcripts from Egerton University were submitted. She admitted that the appellant indicated he was pursuing a Master’s degree at Kenyatta University.
42. The Appellant gave an unsworn statement in his defence on 23 rd July, 2021. He did not call any witnesses. The Appellant stated that he was a procurement officer by profession from Bomet County. He applied for the position online in May 2018 and uploaded his documents, which included; MBA transcripts from Kenyatta University, Moi University certificate and transcripts, KCSE and KCPE certificates and other testimonials.
43. He stated that he was shortlisted and attended the interview on 31 st July, 2018. He maintained that he never submitted a Master's degree certificate from Egerton University. He asserted that he was still pursuing his Master's degree at Kenyatta University and had only submitted transcripts from that institution. He further stated that before entering the interview room, he signed a registration form containing his name, date, and the time he was ushered in. However, he did not fill or sign any declaration form listing the Egerton University certificate.
44. Learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Caleb C. Koech, filed written submissions arguing that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel condensed the seven grounds of appeal into one main issue; whether the prosecution proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
45. Counsel submitted that the prosecution failed to tender crucial evidence, particularly the online application form and the documents the Appellant attached thereto. This omission was fatal, as it would have shown what documents the Appellant actually submitted at the application stage.
46. Regarding the declaration form (P. Exhibit 6), counsel submitted that; the form did not indicate which university issued the Master's degree and that no witness could identify the person who witnessed the Appellant's signature on that form. He further submitted that the failure to call the witnessing officer violated the principle in James Omondi Were v Republic [2014] eKLR , where it was held that failure to call a material witness leads to an inference that their evidence would have been adverse to the prosecution.
47. On the expert evidence (PW11), counsel argued; PW11 admitted there were variations in the handwriting. That he failed to specify the particular features he relied on to reach his conclusion and his evidence was general and inconclusive.
48.Citing Samson Tela Akute v Republic [2006] eKLR and Republic v Podmore (1930) , counsel submitted that expert evidence is merely opinion and must be subjected to independent evaluation by the court. Where the expert fails to detail the similarities and differences, such evidence is of little probative value.
49. Counsel further highlighted material contradictions in the prosecution's case;
· PW1 testified that no transcripts were submitted.
· PW2 testified that the Appellant submitted transcripts from Egerton University.
· This contradiction was never resolved and creates doubt as to what documents the Appellant actually presented.
50. Counsel further submitted that the Appellant had consistently maintained that he was enrolled at Kenyatta University, a fact confirmed by;
· Documents in his personal file (P. Exhibits 39 and 40a-c)
· PW9's admission that the Appellant had declared his Kenyatta University enrolment to his employer
· PW12's own evidence that the Appellant provided Kenyatta University documents during investigation.
51. Counsel argued that it would be illogical for the Appellant to have disclosed his Kenyatta University enrolment to his employer and then turn around and present a fake Egerton University certificate. This inconsistency should have created reasonable doubt in favour of the Appellant.
52. Counsel also noted that the online application and attached documents were never produced. PW12 admitted she did not check the online application. This omission meant that the court could not determine what documents the Appellant originally submitted.
53. Finally, counsel submitted that the last two counts, forgery and uttering, were hinged on the main charges and could not stand if the main charges failed.
54. Counsel prayed that the appeal be allowed, the conviction quashed, and the Appellant set at liberty.
55. Learned Prosecution Counsel, Mr. Anthony K. Ndung'u, filed submissions on behalf of the Respondent opposing the appeal and urging the court to uphold the conviction.
56. He submitted that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant presented a fake Master's degree certificate. The testimony of the six panelists (PW1-PW5 and PW9) was consistent that the Appellant presented the certificate and was awarded marks based on it. Their evidence was corroborated by the score sheets (P. Exhibits 9, 13, 14, 15, and 16).
57. Regarding the declaration form, counsel argued;
· The Appellant's authorship was confirmed by the document examiner (PW11).
· The fact that the witnessing officer was not called was immaterial, as the Appellant's handwriting and signature were proved through expert evidence.
· The prosecution is not required to call a superfluity of witnesses, but only those necessary to establish the charge (citing Bukenya & Others v Uganda [1972] EA 549 ).
58. On the expert evidence, counsel submitted;
· PW11's evidence was clear and cogent. He explained the basis of his opinion, including character formation, pen pressure, and alignment.
· The variations noted were natural and did not detract from his conclusion.
· In John Munyao Nzukie v Republic [1993] KECA 85 (KLR) , the Court of Appeal held that an expert may properly testify that two handwritings are so similar as to be indistinguishable.
· The Appellant did not call any expert witness to rebut PW11's findings.
59. On the contradiction between PW1 and PW2 regarding transcripts, counsel submitted that this was a minor inconsistency that did not go to the core of the prosecution's case. The key issue was whether the Appellant presented the fake certificate, which was proved by overwhelming evidence.
60. Counsel further submitted that the evidence from Egerton University staff (PW6, PW7, PW8, PW10) was unequivocal:
· The certificate was a forgery.
· The Appellant was never a student at Egerton University.
· The MBA (Marketing) option was not offered in 2014, so there could be no graduates in 2016.
· The Appellant's name did not appear in the graduation booklet.
61. On the Appellant's claim that he was pursuing a Master's degree at Kenyatta University, counsel submitted that this did not negate the possibility that he also presented a fake Egerton certificate. Human beings are capable of such contradictions, especially when driven by the desire to secure employment.
62. Counsel prayed that the appeal be dismissed in its entirety and the conviction affirmed.
63. This being a first appeal, this court has a duty to re-evaluate and re-analyze the evidence adduced before the trial court afresh, and to draw its own conclusions, while bearing in mind that the trial court had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses. This principle is well settled in our jurisprudence. In Mark Oiruri Mose v Republic [2013] KECA 67 (KLR) , the Court of Appeal stated;
"It has been said over and over again that the first appellate court has the duty to revisit the evidence tendered before the trial court, afresh analyse it, evaluate it and come to its own independent conclusion on the matter but always bearing in mind that the trial court had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and hearing them give evidence, and should therefore make allowance for that."
64. Similarly, in Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32 , the Court of Appeal for East Africa held;
"An appellant on a first appeal is entitled to expect the evidence as a whole to be submitted to a fresh and exhaustive examination and to the appellate court's own decision on the evidence. The first appellate court must itself weigh conflicting evidence and draw its own conclusions."
65. Guided by these principles, I shall proceed to re-evaluate the evidence on record, consider the grounds of appeal, weigh the submissions by counsel, and render a determination.
66. From the grounds of appeal and the submissions by counsel, the following issues arise for determination:
(i) Whether the declaration form (P. Exhibit 6) was properly proved,
(ii) Whether the expert evidence of PW11 was reliable and conclusive,
(iii) Whether the material contradiction between PW1 and PW2 created reasonable doubt.
(iv) Whether the failure to produce the online application and attached documents was fatal to the prosecution's case.
(v) Whether the Appellant's defence, raised reasonable doubt.
(vi) Whether the trial magistrate properly evaluated the defence case and the gaps in the prosecution's evidence.
(vii) Whether, on the totality of the evidence, the conviction was safe.
67. I will first deal with Ground 2, as it goes to the heart of the prosecution's case. The prosecution relied heavily on the declaration form (P. Exhibit 6) to link the Appellant to the impugned Master's degree certificate. According to the evidence, this form was filled by candidates outside the interview room and was witnessed by a member of the Board's secretariat.
68. The evidence regarding the execution of this form is troubling. None of the prosecution witnesses could identify the person who witnessed the Appellant's signature on this form. I can now examine the testimony of each witness on this point in detail;
· PW1 (Joshua Kipkoech Terer): Under cross-examination, he admitted that he coul
[...truncated]
2. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to all counts on 11 th November, 2020. After a full trial in which the prosecution called twelve (12) witnesses and produced numerous documentary exhibits, the learned trial magistrate (Hon. S.M. Mokua, CM) delivered a judgment on 19th October, 2021, convicting the Appellant on all six counts. The Appellant was sentenced to pay a cumulative fine of Kshs. 900,000/= , in default to serve one (1) year imprisonment. The fines were structured as follows:
· Counts 1-4: Kshs. 200,000/= each, in default 1 year imprisonment per count
· Counts 5-6: Kshs. 50,000/= each, in default 1 year imprisonment per count
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said conviction, the Appellant lodged the instant appeal through a Notice of Appeal filed shortly after the judgment. The appeal is solely against the conviction, and the Appellant does not challenge the sentence imposed by the trial court.
4. The Appellant faced the following six (6) counts before the trial court;
Count I : Deceiving a public entity contrary to section 46(1)(b) as read with section 46(2) of the Leadership and Integrity Act, Cap 182 Laws of Kenya. The particulars were that on 31 st July, 2018, at Bomet County, being a public officer, the Appellant knowingly deceived Bomet County Public Service Board by stating that he had a Master's Certificate in Business Administration (Marketing) purported to have been awarded to him by Egerton University on 9 th December, 2016.
Count II : Providing false information to a public entity contrary to section 46(1)(d) as read with section 46(2) of the Leadership and Integrity Act. The particulars were that on the same date and place, being a public officer, the Appellant knowingly provided false information to Bomet County Public Service Board by stating that he had a Master's Certificate in Business Administration (Marketing) purporting it to have been awarded to him by Egerton University on 9 th December, 2016.
Count III : Making a false statement to a principal contrary to section 41(1) as read with section 48 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA) . The particulars were that on the same date and place, being a public officer, the Appellant knowingly gave a false statement to his principal, the Bomet County Public Service Board, by stating that he had a Master's Certificate in Business Administration (Marketing) purporting it to have been awarded to him by Egerton University on 9 th December, 2016.
Count IV : Giving a false document to a principal contrary to section 41(2) as read with section 48 of ACECA. The particulars were that on the same date and place, being a public officer, the Appellant knowingly gave to his principal, the Bomet County Public Service Board, a false Master's Certificate in Business Administration (Marketing) purporting it to have been awarded to him by Egerton University on 9 th December, 2016.
Count V : Forgery contrary to section 349 of the Penal Code. The particulars were that on unknown dates and at some unknown place within the Republic of Kenya, jointly with others not before court, the Appellant willfully and with intent to deceive, forged a Master's Certificate in Business Administration (Marketing) purporting it to be a Master's Certificate from Egerton University.
Count VI : Uttering a false document contrary to section 353 of the Penal Code. The particulars were that on the same date and place, jointly with others not before court, the Appellant fraudulently and with intent to deceive, knowingly uttered a Master's Certificate in Business Administration (Marketing) purporting it to be a Master's Certificate from Egerton University, a fact he knew was not true.
5. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to all counts, and his plea was duly entered by the trial court. He was released on bond terms of Kshs. 1,000,000/= with a surety of similar amount, or alternative cash bail of Kshs. 400,000/=.
6. The Appellant filed a Petition of Appeal dated 1 st November, 2021, setting out seven (7) distinct grounds of appeal which I have keenly perused.
7. The Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed, the conviction be quashed, and the sentence be set aside.
8. The appeal was admitted to hearing before a single judge of this court on 27 th November, 2025. The court directed the parties to file and exchange written submissions within thirty (30) days. Both parties complied with these directions, filing their respective submissions though later than the stipulated time.
9. The prosecution's case was built around the recruitment process for the position of Assistant Director Procurement conducted by the Bomet County Public Service Board. A total of twelve (12) witnesses testified, and numerous documents were produced in evidence.
10. PW1 - Joshua Kipkoech Terer was the former Chairperson of the Bomet County Public Service Board, having served for six years until his retirement in July 2019. He testified that on 14 th February, 2018, the Board advertised the position of Assistant Director Procurement through print and digital media. The advertisement appeared in the Star Newspaper of 14 th February, 2018 (page 33), and was marked as PMFI-1. The minimum requirements included a Bachelor's degree in Supply Chain Management, a Master's degree in a relevant discipline, membership in a professional body (Kenya Institute of Supplies Management), five years' experience, and a Public Practitioner's licence.
11. According to PW1, applications were received online through the County portal. Shortlisted candidates were notified through print media on 25 th July, 2018 (PMFI-3). The shortlist was also published on the County portal. An extract showing the shortlisted candidates (PMFI-4) revealed that the Appellant's name appeared as the first candidate for the Assistant Director position.
12. The interview was scheduled for 31 st July, 2018. Candidates were required to sign an attendance sheet (PMFI-5), which showed four candidates with the Appellant being number one on the list. Candidates were also required to fill a declaration form (P. Exhibit 6) listing the documents they intended to rely on and declaring their authenticity.
13. PW1 testified that the Appellant presented several documents, including a Master's Degree certificate purportedly from Egerton University (P. Exhibit 7). Based on this document, the Appellant was awarded marks. PW1 produced his score sheet as P. Exhibit 9. However, before the appointment could be made, the Board received an anonymous tip-off that the certificate might be fake. The Board wrote to Egerton University for verification on 22 nd August, 2018 (PMFI-10) and received a response on 23 rd August, 2018 (PMFI-11) indicating that the certificate was not genuine. The matter was then referred to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) for investigation on 12 th September, 2018 (PMFI-12).
14. Under cross-examination, PW1 made several important concessions;
· He admitted that he could not remember whether transcripts were submitted.
· He confirmed that copies of transcripts had not been availed in court.
· He stated that verification could only be conducted after the interview.
· He admitted that he could not specify the exact time when the Board learned of the fake nature of the documents.
· Critically, he admitted that he could not tell before whom the declaration form (P. Exhibit 6) was signed. He stated that the form was signed in the presence of the secretariat, but he did not know who processed the candidates or in whose presence the form was actually signed.
15. PW2 - Eunice Cherono Benson was the Vice Chairperson of the Bomet County Public Service Board, having retired in June 2019. Her role involved deputizing the Chair in training and recruitment matters. She confirmed the advertisement and the shortlisting process. She testified that she was a panelist during the interviews and personally saw the Appellant's Master's degree certificate. She identified a copy of the certificate as PMFI-7 (later P. Exhibit 7). She also saw his Bachelor's certificate (PMFI-8a), KCSE certificate (PMFI-8b), and KCPE certificate (PMFI-8c).
16. PW2 described the scoring system; KCSE (5 points), Bachelor's Degree (10 points), Master's Degree (15 points). She scored the Appellant 79 marks and produced her score sheet as P. Exhibit 13. She confirmed that the Appellant passed the interview, though she did not recall him being notified of the outcome.
17. Under cross-examination, PW2 stated;
· She recalled that the Appellant presented four documents at the interview, including a Master's degree and transcripts from Egerton University.
· She was not aware if those transcripts had been availed in court.
· She confirmed that the office of the secretary received copies that had been submitted online, and shortlisting was done in a meeting.
· She confirmed that the Appellant was an employee of Bomet County at the time of the interview.
· She stated that the anonymous information about the fake certificate came from the public domain during the time of the interviews.
· She could not name the officer who witnessed the execution of the declaration form.
18. It is noteworthy that PW2's testimony that the Appellant submitted transcripts from Egerton University directly contradicted PW1's testimony that no transcripts were submitted. This contradiction was never resolved by the prosecution.
19. PW3 - Justus Kibet Langat was a member of the Board and a panelist. He testified that he filled his score sheet on 31 st July, 2018, awarding the Appellant 84 marks. He produced his score sheet as P. Exhibit 14. Under cross-examination, he admitted that the score sheet did not indicate which university issued the Master's degree. He also admitted that he did not see transcripts from Kenyatta University.
20. PW4 - Pastor Joseph Kipkurui Rono was a pastor, farmer, and Board member. He testified that he saw the Appellant's academic documents, including the Master's degree certificate. He produced his score sheet as P. Exhibit 15. Under cross-examination, he admitted that the application form did not indicate the university from which the Master's degree was earned.
21. PW5 - Judith Chepngetich Siele was a former Board member from 2013 to 2019. She testified that before awarding scores, she perused the original documents. She scored the Appellant 89 marks and produced her score sheet as P. Exhibit 16. Under cross-examination, she confirmed that all board members checked the documents, but she could not name the officer who witnessed the execution of the declaration form.
22. PW6 - Professor James Kiprop Tuitoek was a former lecturer at Egerton University from 1989 to 2019. He served as Vice Chancellor from January 2006 to January 2016. His role included being Chairman of the University Senate, responsible for admissions, curriculum approval, student progression, and approving the graduation list.
23. PW6 explained the certificate issuance process; once the Senate approves a student, the name is sent to the University Council for inclusion in the graduation list. The Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic Affairs), and Registrar (Academic Affairs) then sign the certificates.
24. PW6 stated that his term ended on 12 th January, 2016, and he handed over to Professor Rose Mwonya. From that day, he ceased being a signatory to university certificates.
25. On 2 nd February, 2019, EACC officers visited him and requested verification of a certificate in their possession. He was shown a certificate (P. Exhibit 7), a Master's Degree in Business Administration (Marketing option), purportedly from Egerton University, issued on 9 th December, 2016.
26. PW6 noted several anomalies;
· Signatory Issue; The certificate was issued on 9 th December, 2016, but he had handed over the Vice Chancellor position on 12 th January, 2016. Therefore, he should not have been a signatory. However, the certificate bore a signature that looked like his.
· Admission Number; The certificate bore admission serial number CM 11/200236/16. Normally, admission numbers are assigned based on the year of joining. The number "16" suggested the student joined in 2016 and graduated in the same year. Admissions typically happen in September, and graduations in December of the same year. He noted that the first student admission serial for that program should have been CM11/2001. The number on the certificate (200236) far exceeded the normal admission range for the MBA program.
· Impossible Timeline; It was impossible for a student admitted in September 2016 to graduate in December 2016, as the MBA program takes two years.
· No MBA Marketing Option in 2014; Crucially, in 2014, while he was still Vice Chancellor, the university did not admit students for the MBA (Marketing option) because they could not meet the required quorum. Therefore, it would have been impossible for a student admitted in 2014 to graduate in 2016 with that specialization.
· Graduation Booklet; He examined the graduation booklet for 2016. In the Faculty of Commerce section, there were 20 MBA candidates, 5 in Finance and 2 in Human Resource. There was no "Marketing" option listed. The Appellant's name did not appear anywhere. The booklet was produced as P. Exhibit 17.
27. Under cross-examination, PW6 admitted that he could not confirm whether the certificate shown to him was an original or a copy. He also stated that he was not aware if the Appellant had ever sought verification from the university himself.
28. PW7 - Seth Fredrick Ochieng Omollo was the Academic Registrar at Egerton University. He confirmed that he kept records of students up to graduation. He examined the certificate and noted that the registration number was irregular, the signature font was not what the university used, and the signature appeared to have been lifted by a computer. He confirmed that the university did not offer MBA (Marketing) option in 2016.
29. PW8 - Mwana Amisi Said was the Deputy Registrar in 2016. Her role included maintaining students' records and processing certificates. She confirmed that the certificate did not originate from Egerton University. She noted that an MBA degree normally takes two years, but the Appellant's certificate showed admission in 2016 and graduation in the same year. Further, there were no students admitted to the MBA (Marketing) option during that period.
30. PW9 - Philip Kipkurui Tanui was the Secretary to the Bomet County Public Service Board. His role included taking minutes during Board sittings. He confirmed that the Appellant was an employee of Bomet County Government. He produced various documents from the Appellant's personal file, including:
· Letter of appointment (P. Exhibit 18a)
· Application form for employment (P. Exhibit 18b)
· Payroll documents
· KRA PIN certificate
· Correspondence between Bomet County and Egerton
University
· Letter from Board to EACC (P. Exhibits 10, 11, and 12)
31. Under cross-examination, PW9 stated that he only received copies of the documents submitted by the Appellant, including the impugned certificate, from the Board's Chair. He could not name the person who witnessed the execution of the declaration form. Crucially, PW9 admitted that the Appellant had declared to his employer (Bomet County Government) that he was a graduand of Kenyatta University-MBA.
32. PW10 - Professor Ruth Awuor Mwonya was the Vice Chancellor who succeeded PW6 on 12 th January, 2016. She examined the certificate and confirmed it was not issued by the university. She explained that the university applies signatures electronically after verification, but the signature on the certificate was irregular.
33. PW11 - Stephen K. Yego was a forensic document examiner with the EACC. He had been a government forensic examiner since 2009 and joined EACC in 2015. His duties included examination of handwriting and signatures. On 20 th March, 2019, he received documents from PW12 for examination. These included; A1: A letterhead of the County Government of Bomet Public Service Board with details of the Appellant, A2: A letterhead from the County Government of Bomet dated 31 st August, 2018 and B1 – B4: Specimen handwriting and signatures of the Appellant.
34. His examination revealed that the handwriting and signatures on A1 and A2 matched the specimens. He produced his report dated 30 th March, 2019 as P. Exhibit 21. On 17 th December, 2019, he received further exhibits, including; A3: A certified copy of the Master's degree certificate (P. Exhibit 7), B4 – B5: Specimen handwriting of Professor James Tuitoek, B6 – B8: Specimen handwriting and signatures of Professor Rose Mwonya and B9 – B10: Specimen handwriting and signatures of Seth Fredrick Owino.
35. His examination revealed that the signatures on the certificate matched the specimens of the respective individuals. However, he noted that the signatures on the certificate were electronically generated and not physically signed. He produced his second report dated 24 th December, 2019 as P. Exhibit 22.
36. Under cross-examination, PW11 made significant concessions; He admitted that there were variations between the specimen and the questioned documents. When pressed on specific variations, he could not highlight them in detail.
37. PW12 - Roseline Atieno Omondi was the investigating officer from EACC, having joined in 2015. The investigation began following the letter from the Board dated 12 th September, 2018.
38. PW12 testified that she wrote to various institutions to verify the Appellant's academic documents;
KNEC: Confirmed KCPE and KCSE certificates were genuine. She produced the report as P. Exhibit 31 and the certificates as P. Exhibits 8b and 8c.
Moi University: Confirmed the Bachelor's degree was genuine. She produced the response as P. Exhibit 34 and the certificate as P. Exhibit 8a.
Kabianga University: Confirmed records, as a constituent of Moi University. She produced letters as P. Exhibits 32, 33, and 35.
Egerton University: Responded that the certificate did not originate from them. She produced the letter from EACC to Egerton as P. Exhibit 36 and the response as P. Exhibit 37.
39. PW12 obtained the contents of the Appellant's personal file from the Board, including his letter of appointment, biodata form, deployment letter, pay slips, and a letter from the Appellant to HR dated 20 th April, 2015 (P. Exhibit 30). The enclosures in that letter included a copy of the Master's degree certificate, which was certified by the Board secretary and produced as P. Exhibit 7.
40. PW12 testified that when she interviewed the Appellant, he denied submitting the Egerton University certificate and instead claimed he was pursuing a Master's degree at Kenyatta University. He provided an admission letter dated January, 2013 (P. Exhibit 39) and provisional academic transcripts dated 8 th June, 2015 (P. Exhibits 40a–40c).
41. Under cross-examination, PW12 made crucial admissions; She could not identify the person who witnessed the execution of the declaration form. She admitted that she never checked the documents the Appellant submitted online. She conceded that the EACC declaration form cited in the data capture form would ordinarily set out the documents submitted by an applicant. She confirmed that no transcripts from Egerton University were submitted. She admitted that the appellant indicated he was pursuing a Master’s degree at Kenyatta University.
42. The Appellant gave an unsworn statement in his defence on 23 rd July, 2021. He did not call any witnesses. The Appellant stated that he was a procurement officer by profession from Bomet County. He applied for the position online in May 2018 and uploaded his documents, which included; MBA transcripts from Kenyatta University, Moi University certificate and transcripts, KCSE and KCPE certificates and other testimonials.
43. He stated that he was shortlisted and attended the interview on 31 st July, 2018. He maintained that he never submitted a Master's degree certificate from Egerton University. He asserted that he was still pursuing his Master's degree at Kenyatta University and had only submitted transcripts from that institution. He further stated that before entering the interview room, he signed a registration form containing his name, date, and the time he was ushered in. However, he did not fill or sign any declaration form listing the Egerton University certificate.
44. Learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Caleb C. Koech, filed written submissions arguing that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel condensed the seven grounds of appeal into one main issue; whether the prosecution proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
45. Counsel submitted that the prosecution failed to tender crucial evidence, particularly the online application form and the documents the Appellant attached thereto. This omission was fatal, as it would have shown what documents the Appellant actually submitted at the application stage.
46. Regarding the declaration form (P. Exhibit 6), counsel submitted that; the form did not indicate which university issued the Master's degree and that no witness could identify the person who witnessed the Appellant's signature on that form. He further submitted that the failure to call the witnessing officer violated the principle in James Omondi Were v Republic [2014] eKLR , where it was held that failure to call a material witness leads to an inference that their evidence would have been adverse to the prosecution.
47. On the expert evidence (PW11), counsel argued; PW11 admitted there were variations in the handwriting. That he failed to specify the particular features he relied on to reach his conclusion and his evidence was general and inconclusive.
48.Citing Samson Tela Akute v Republic [2006] eKLR and Republic v Podmore (1930) , counsel submitted that expert evidence is merely opinion and must be subjected to independent evaluation by the court. Where the expert fails to detail the similarities and differences, such evidence is of little probative value.
49. Counsel further highlighted material contradictions in the prosecution's case;
· PW1 testified that no transcripts were submitted.
· PW2 testified that the Appellant submitted transcripts from Egerton University.
· This contradiction was never resolved and creates doubt as to what documents the Appellant actually presented.
50. Counsel further submitted that the Appellant had consistently maintained that he was enrolled at Kenyatta University, a fact confirmed by;
· Documents in his personal file (P. Exhibits 39 and 40a-c)
· PW9's admission that the Appellant had declared his Kenyatta University enrolment to his employer
· PW12's own evidence that the Appellant provided Kenyatta University documents during investigation.
51. Counsel argued that it would be illogical for the Appellant to have disclosed his Kenyatta University enrolment to his employer and then turn around and present a fake Egerton University certificate. This inconsistency should have created reasonable doubt in favour of the Appellant.
52. Counsel also noted that the online application and attached documents were never produced. PW12 admitted she did not check the online application. This omission meant that the court could not determine what documents the Appellant originally submitted.
53. Finally, counsel submitted that the last two counts, forgery and uttering, were hinged on the main charges and could not stand if the main charges failed.
54. Counsel prayed that the appeal be allowed, the conviction quashed, and the Appellant set at liberty.
55. Learned Prosecution Counsel, Mr. Anthony K. Ndung'u, filed submissions on behalf of the Respondent opposing the appeal and urging the court to uphold the conviction.
56. He submitted that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant presented a fake Master's degree certificate. The testimony of the six panelists (PW1-PW5 and PW9) was consistent that the Appellant presented the certificate and was awarded marks based on it. Their evidence was corroborated by the score sheets (P. Exhibits 9, 13, 14, 15, and 16).
57. Regarding the declaration form, counsel argued;
· The Appellant's authorship was confirmed by the document examiner (PW11).
· The fact that the witnessing officer was not called was immaterial, as the Appellant's handwriting and signature were proved through expert evidence.
· The prosecution is not required to call a superfluity of witnesses, but only those necessary to establish the charge (citing Bukenya & Others v Uganda [1972] EA 549 ).
58. On the expert evidence, counsel submitted;
· PW11's evidence was clear and cogent. He explained the basis of his opinion, including character formation, pen pressure, and alignment.
· The variations noted were natural and did not detract from his conclusion.
· In John Munyao Nzukie v Republic [1993] KECA 85 (KLR) , the Court of Appeal held that an expert may properly testify that two handwritings are so similar as to be indistinguishable.
· The Appellant did not call any expert witness to rebut PW11's findings.
59. On the contradiction between PW1 and PW2 regarding transcripts, counsel submitted that this was a minor inconsistency that did not go to the core of the prosecution's case. The key issue was whether the Appellant presented the fake certificate, which was proved by overwhelming evidence.
60. Counsel further submitted that the evidence from Egerton University staff (PW6, PW7, PW8, PW10) was unequivocal:
· The certificate was a forgery.
· The Appellant was never a student at Egerton University.
· The MBA (Marketing) option was not offered in 2014, so there could be no graduates in 2016.
· The Appellant's name did not appear in the graduation booklet.
61. On the Appellant's claim that he was pursuing a Master's degree at Kenyatta University, counsel submitted that this did not negate the possibility that he also presented a fake Egerton certificate. Human beings are capable of such contradictions, especially when driven by the desire to secure employment.
62. Counsel prayed that the appeal be dismissed in its entirety and the conviction affirmed.
63. This being a first appeal, this court has a duty to re-evaluate and re-analyze the evidence adduced before the trial court afresh, and to draw its own conclusions, while bearing in mind that the trial court had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses. This principle is well settled in our jurisprudence. In Mark Oiruri Mose v Republic [2013] KECA 67 (KLR) , the Court of Appeal stated;
"It has been said over and over again that the first appellate court has the duty to revisit the evidence tendered before the trial court, afresh analyse it, evaluate it and come to its own independent conclusion on the matter but always bearing in mind that the trial court had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and hearing them give evidence, and should therefore make allowance for that."
64. Similarly, in Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32 , the Court of Appeal for East Africa held;
"An appellant on a first appeal is entitled to expect the evidence as a whole to be submitted to a fresh and exhaustive examination and to the appellate court's own decision on the evidence. The first appellate court must itself weigh conflicting evidence and draw its own conclusions."
65. Guided by these principles, I shall proceed to re-evaluate the evidence on record, consider the grounds of appeal, weigh the submissions by counsel, and render a determination.
66. From the grounds of appeal and the submissions by counsel, the following issues arise for determination:
(i) Whether the declaration form (P. Exhibit 6) was properly proved,
(ii) Whether the expert evidence of PW11 was reliable and conclusive,
(iii) Whether the material contradiction between PW1 and PW2 created reasonable doubt.
(iv) Whether the failure to produce the online application and attached documents was fatal to the prosecution's case.
(v) Whether the Appellant's defence, raised reasonable doubt.
(vi) Whether the trial magistrate properly evaluated the defence case and the gaps in the prosecution's evidence.
(vii) Whether, on the totality of the evidence, the conviction was safe.
67. I will first deal with Ground 2, as it goes to the heart of the prosecution's case. The prosecution relied heavily on the declaration form (P. Exhibit 6) to link the Appellant to the impugned Master's degree certificate. According to the evidence, this form was filled by candidates outside the interview room and was witnessed by a member of the Board's secretariat.
68. The evidence regarding the execution of this form is troubling. None of the prosecution witnesses could identify the person who witnessed the Appellant's signature on this form. I can now examine the testimony of each witness on this point in detail;
· PW1 (Joshua Kipkoech Terer): Under cross-examination, he admitted that he coul
[...truncated]