The court held that it takes cognizance of the
role of the first appellate court and how it
ought to evaluate the evidence and reach an
independent conclusion. That the offence of
abuse of office was not proved given that the
appellant was precluded from attending to the
office and that he wa nearing a handover. That
the handwriting expert including the evidence
of relied on as forged placed doubt to the
prosecution’s case. That given the recovery of
the documents while he was still in
employment, he didn’t posses the documents
illegally.