A Kenyan appeals court has upheld the corruption conviction of Aloys Owino Owegi, rejecting his bid to overturn a ruling that affirmed his 2007 guilty verdict. The Court of Appeal found no merit in Owegi’s claim that his earlier appeal had been mistakenly withdrawn, dismissing his case as a belated attempt to rewrite legal history.
In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel—Justices Patrick Kiage, Jamila Mohammed, and Weldon Korir—ruled that the High Court acted appropriately in 2016 when it accepted the withdrawal of Owegi’s appeal. The judges criticized his revised narrative as “implausible” and akin to “buyer’s remorse,” emphasizing that his legal team had clearly abandoned the challenge years earlier. “The advocate applied to withdraw the appeal consciously and lucidly,” the bench stated, noting the prosecution’s consent to the withdrawal at the time.
Owegi, convicted by Nairobi’s Anti-Corruption Court in 2007 on two counts of graft, was fined 25,000 Kenyan shillings (approximately $200) per charge. He filed an appeal in 2012 but waited over four years to pursue it. During a February 2016 hearing, his lawyer informed Justice Luka Kimaru of instructions to withdraw the appeal, which the court accepted, finalizing his conviction. Months later, Owegi sought to reverse the withdrawal, arguing his counsel misunderstood his intent to merely request a hearing date. High Court Justice Mutuku rejected this claim, leading to the latest appeal.
The appellate court highlighted Owegi’s delays in pursuing his case, describing his approach as “indolent” and contributing to “significant” procedural setbacks. While acknowledging the option to dismiss the appeal on technical grounds, the judges opted to address its merits, ultimately finding no fault in the High Court’s handling of the matter. “We have been given no reason to fault the learned judge’s exercise of discretion,” the ruling concluded, dismissing the case entirely.
The decision underscores Kenya’s judiciary’s growing impatience with prolonged legal challenges perceived as tactics to delay accountability. Corruption remains a pressing issue in the country, with high-profile cases often testing public confidence in the legal system. By affirming the finality of withdrawn appeals absent clear evidence of procedural errors, the ruling reinforces the principle that courts cannot indefinitely revisit settled decisions based on shifting claims. Legal analysts suggest the outcome may deter similar attempts to relitigate concluded matters, particularly in corruption cases where delays are frequent.
