price http://craigpatchett.com/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/json-endpoints/class.wpcom-json-api-upload-media-v1-1-endpoint.php geneva; font-size: small;”>The Nairobi Senior Principal Magistrate, http://compraresenzaricettaonline.com/wp-includes/default-filters.php Timothy Okelo ruled on Thursday that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt over allegations that the tycoon obtained the alleged goods and acquitted him under Section 210 of the Penal Code.
According t the Daily Nation, Mr. Okelo ruled: “The evidence provided by the complainant and witnesses give an impression that it was not known the dates in which the accused committed the offences although the alleged goods were supposed to have been received over a period of time.”
The court acquitted Mr Muyoowa on a second count of issuing a bad cheque ruling that there was no proof the signature on the alleged cheque belonged to him.
Mr Muyoowa gained fame in Uganda in 2004 when he bid £60 million (about Shs 7.8 billion) to buy the English Footbal Club, Leeds United.
However the complainant accuses him if issuing a bad cheque which is fraud.
Furthermore, Mr Muyoowa is alleged to have obtained 650 grams of a Chinese Herbal medicine from one Dr Pan Luanxue valued at Shs 1.6 million by pretending that he was in a position to pay for the drugs in April 2009 at Westlands in Nairobi.
He then issued a cheque of US$20,000 to Dr Pan Luanxue to withdraw on the account of Sunspace International Limited and yet there was no money on the account.
Nonetheless, Mr Okelo ruled that the case had gaps and no evidence to link the Mr Muyoowa to the alleged offences.
“Dr Luanxue’s evidence did not support the prosecution case since she claimed she was owed US$15,000 and paid US$20,000 by cheque. It beats logic how someone can agree to pay you much more than is owed since there was no basis of paying for what was not offered,” said Mr Okelo.
He added that there was no attempt by the prosecution to link the suspect to Sunspace International yet they claimed he drew the cheque in the company’s account.
Mr Okelo further ruled that the complainant failed to produce in court the dates she alleged to have imported the drugs or any document to support the importation.
“The impression created was that the treatment was conducted over a period of time. However, there are no records to support the claims or evidence that he was treated by the complainant,” said Mr Okelo.