A Mavoko Law Court has acquitted a scrap metal dealer who had been accused of stealing and handling vandalised electricity infrastructure, ruling that the prosecution did not meet the required standard of proof.
In a judgment delivered in December 2025, the Chief Magistrate’s Court found that the evidence presented against Luo Minghui was insufficient to sustain the charges brought against her.
The accused had been facing several counts related to the alleged theft and handling of copper conductors, bars and transformer components said to belong to Kenya Electricity Transmission Company (KETRACO) and Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KPLC).
The prosecution alleged that the offences were committed between April and June 2023, with some of the disputed materials allegedly recovered from premises associated with the accused in Athi River.
However, the court noted that no witness directly linked Minghui to the theft of the items, nor was there any direct evidence placing her at the scene of the alleged offences.
In its analysis, the court pointed out serious investigative shortcomings, including the failure to produce an inventory of the recovered materials, photographs or expert reports confirming their origin.
The magistrate also observed that ownership of the items by KETRACO or KPLC had not been conclusively established, with witnesses giving inconsistent testimony on the nature and identification of the materials.
The court further took into account that the accused was a licensed scrap metal dealer who lawfully handled scrap materials as part of her business and found no proof that she knowingly dealt in stolen or vandalised electricity equipment.
Represented by advocate Cecil Miller, the defence argued that the case was built on speculation and lacked credible evidence linking the accused to any criminal conduct.
The court agreed, holding that suspicion alone could not form the basis of a conviction.
As a result, Minghui was acquitted on all counts and ordered to be released immediately unless otherwise lawfully held.
The court advised that any party dissatisfied with the decision has the right to appeal within the prescribed period.
