https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8020

Koech & another v Republic (Criminal Appeal E051 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8020 (KLR) (5 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8020 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Iten Criminal Appeal E051 of 2024 JRA Wananda, J June 5, 2026 Between Victor Kimaiyo Koech 1st Appellant Meshack Kiptum 2nd Appellant and Republic Respondent (Appeal against the Judgment and sentence delivered by Hon. E. Kigen – PM on 18/09/2024 in Iten Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal (Sexual Offences) Case No. E001 of 2024) Judgment 1.The 1st and 2nd Appellant were jointly charged in the criminal case referred to above. 2.The 1st Appellant was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act, No. 3 of 2006. The particulars were that on 29/12/2023 during night hours in Keiyo North sub-County within Elgeyo Marakwet County, he intentionally and unlawfully caused his penis to penetrate the vagina of MJ, a child aged 15 years old. He was also charged with the alternative offence of committing an indecent act with the same child, contrary to Section 11(1) of the same Act by touching her private parts, namely, vagina, with his penis. 3.On his part, the 2nd Appellant was charged with the offence of attempted defilement contrary to Section 9(1) as read with Section 9(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. The particulars were that on 30/12/2023 at around 0700 hours at the same place as the 1st Appellant above, he intentionally and unlawfully attempted to cause his penis to penetrate the vagina of the same MJ, a child aged 15 years old. He, too, also faced the alternative offence of committing an indecent act with the same child, contrary to Section 11(1) of the same Act by touching her private parts, namely, vagina, with his fingers. 4.Both Appellants pleaded not guilty not all the charges, and the case proceeded to full trial in which the Prosecution called 5 witnesses. At the close of the Prosecution’s case, the Court found each Appellant with a case to answer and placed them both on their defence. The Appellants opted not to testify nor call any witnesses. By the said Judgment delivered on 18/09/2024 as aforesaid, both Appellants were convicted on the main charges. The 1st Appellant was then sentenced to serve 20 years’ imprisonment, and the 2nd Appellant, 10 years. 5.Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellants, through Messrs Tarigo Kiptoo & Co. Advocates, filed this joint Appeal on 2/10/2024. The Memorandum of Appeal contains 7 grounds, quoted verbatim, as follows:i.The Learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to consider the evidence of the Appellants on merit.ii.The Learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to consider the nature of the offence the circumstances under which the Appellants were operating under at the time the offence occurred.iii.The Learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to consider the fact that the Prosecution had not proved their case beyond any reasonable doubt.iv.The Learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to consider the fact that the Prosecution evidences (sic) were contradicting themselves.v.The Learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to find that the complainant had been defiled by somebody else and not the Appellants.vi.The Learned trial Magistrate erred in fact and law by failing to evaluate the medical records objectively.vii.The Learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellants and by sentencing them to maximum of 20 years and 10 years respectively and which is too harsh for the Appellants considering the fact that they were first offenders. Prosecution evidence before the trial Court 6.The complainant, MJ, testified as PW1. She stated that she was a Grade 8 primary school pupil, and born on 16/12/2009, thus 15 years old. She then testified that she was from her grandmother’s home on 16/12/2023, and while on her way back home, she met VJ, to whose grandmother’s home they then went and stayed up to 23/12/2023 together with VJ’s sisters and parents. She stated that on 23/12/2023, they went to VJ’s grandmother’s home at Kapkessum and on 29/12/2023, they went to a function where she met one Emmanuel, with whom she went to his house together with VJ. She testified that she and VJ slept in one room while Emmanuel slept in a separate room, that on the following day, they all went to the 1st Appellant’s house where they stayed for 1 week, up to 6/01/2024 with herself and Emmanuel sleeping in one room and having sex, while VJ and the 1st Appellant slept in another. She testified that the 2nd Appellant is the 1st Appellant’s brother and that on 6/01/2023, the Appellants’ mother, who all along knew of their presence in the home, asked them to leave, that the matter was reported to the Chief and also to VJ’s father, who then came and took them to the police station. Going backwards, she stated that she never had sex with the 2nd Appellant, who, though he came and asked her for sex while PW1 was in the 1st Appellant’s house, she refused, and the 2nd Appellant then went to approach VJ instead. She reiterated that the 2nd Appellant never did anything to her. She then however added that when she refused the 2nd Appellant’s advances, he forcefully removed her trouser and pant and inserted his fingers in her vagina and at which point, Emmanuel walked in and asked him to leave. She testified further that the 1st Appellant also had sex with her frequently, and that at one point he did so was when her boyfriend, Emmanuel, had gone to the Centre. She also stated that it is the Appellant’s mother who raised the alarm and alerted neighbours by screaming when she learnt that they (the girls) were in the home, and that the Chief came and arrested 4 of them as Emmanuel escaped, and the 2nd Appellant was arrested later. In conclusion, she stated that she did not earlier know the 1st and 2nd Appellants until Emmanuel introduced her to them. She then identified the 2nd Appellant seated in Court. In cross-examination, she reiterated that they went to Kapkessum on 29/12/2023 and slept with Emmanuel on that night at the shop, who then took them to the 1st Appellant’s house on 30/12/2023 at about 1.00 am and woke him up. She then stated that VJ was arrested in the 1st Appellant’s house while she (PW1) was arrested at her aunt’s place. She also stated that on 5/01/2024, they found the 1st Appellant at a school function and she went with him to another boy’s school house where they had sex. Regarding the inserting of fingers in her vagina by the 2nd Appellant, she stated that VJ witnessed it and intervened before Emmanuel also came and asked the 2nd Appellant to leave. 7.PW2 was Rael Kipkorir, who introduced herself as the area Assistant Chief. She testified that she was in her house on 6/01/2024 when at about 1.00 pm, she received a phone call from a member of the public who informed her that he had found his daughter whom he been searching for since 16/12/2023, in one of the villages. She (PW2) testified that she then went to the scene where she found a crowd with 2 girls, whom she questioned and then took them to the police station. She stated that the girls told her that they had slept with various boys who were however not in the crowd, and they showed her the Appellants’ house, and also mentioned “Emmanuel” and “Eugene”. She stated that she knew the 1st Appellant even prior to the incident, and then identified him in Court. In cross-examination, she stated that the girls told her that it is Emmanuel who took them to the house, and that PW1 told her that she had slept with Emmanuel, that the 2nd Appellant also attempted to defile her, and that the 1st Appellant also had sex with her. She stated that the 2nd Appellant was arrested on 9/01/2024. 8.PW3 was Daniel Kipkurui Koech who testified that on 29/12/2023, PW1’s grandmother informed him that PW1 had gone missing, upon which he reported the matter to the village elder and a search was commenced. He testified that he later learnt that the girls had been found at Kapkessum where he went to check but did not find them, that he later heard that they had been traced at Kanapai, where he then went with the village elder, and indeed found PW1 and another girl, who told him that Emmanuel had found them in Sergoit and taken them to the house they were found, belonging to another boy. He stated that they then arrested Emmanuel and one “Eugene” and the Chief came and they took the suspects to the police station. He stated that he did not know the suspects before, and that PW1 was born in 2010 and was therefore 14 years old, and was still in school. He also reiterated that the girls were found in Emmanuel’s house. In cross-examination, he stated that the grandmother reported PW1’s disappearance on 29/12/2023, he reported the same to the village elder on 31/12/202023, and they found the girls on 6/01/2024. 9.PW4 was Philemon Kittony, who introduced herself as a Clinical Officer at the Iten County Referral Hospital, and the co-ordinator of gender-based violence help-desk. She stated that PW1, aged 10 years old, was attended to at the hospital on 6/01/2024 with a complaint of having been defiled, and that she was seen within a period of 72 hours of the defilement. She testified that examination of PW1 revealed signs of sharp penetration, her vaginal nose was open, labia was intact, she had a torn hymen, and she had whitish vaginal discharge. She testified that normal discharge is clear and devoid of any colour, and discoloration of discharge could be a sign of an infection. She also testified that PW1 told her that one of the perpetrators had inserted a finger in her vagina. PW4 further testified that the Post Rape Care (PRC) Form was filled on 8/01/2024, and that the date of the incident was 29/12/2023 at 7.00 pm. She also testified that PW1 told her that the perpetrator used a condom. PW4 further stated that there was no bruise or inflammation on the vagina, and that there was a white stain in the pubic area, and no spermatozoa were observed. In conclusion, she produced the P3 Form, the PRC Form, and the Laboratory Results Slip. In cross-examination, she restated that the white discharge was a result of an infection, and also stated that numerous pus cells were also observed. She also stated that while a woman would show signs of an infection after about 3 days, a man’s would manifest after about 14 days, and that the date of the examination was 7/01/2024, which was about 9 days after the sexual act. 10.PW5 was Police Constable Leah Chemutai, who introduced herself as an officer at the Iten Police Station. She testified that she was in the office on 6/12/2024 when VJ’s father, grandmother and the area Chief (PW2) reported that the two girls, PW1 and VJ had disappeared from home on 29/12/2023 when they went for a function and had been found on that day, 6/01/2024, and that the reporters gave the names of the 1st and 2nd Appellants as the suspects who were with the girls. She stated that the girls told her that it is one Emmanuel who picked them from Sergoit, and PW1 told her that she had sex with the 1st Appellant, and the following morning, the 2nd Appellant also forced her into sexual intercourse and inserted his finger into her finger. PW5 testified that she then escorted the girls to the hospital where the doctor confirmed defilement, after which the girls identified the suspects whom they then arrested. According to her, PW1 was 15 years old and she then produced her Certificate of Birth in evidence. She stated further that the defilement took place between 29/12/2023 and 6/01/2024, and observed that the P3 contained an error insofar as it referred to the latter date as “6/01/2023” instead of “6/01/2024”. She then stated that she arrested the Appellants at their homes, and she identified both in Court. 11.As aforesaid, when put on their defence, the Appellants opted not to testify or give any evidence. Hearing of the Appeal 12.The Appeal was then canvassed by way of written Submissions. The Appellants, through their Advocates, filed their joint Submissions dated 5/11/2025, while the State, through Prosecution Counsel Racheal Mwangi, filed the Submissions dated 21/01/2026. Appellant’s Submissions 13.Mr. Tarigo, Counsel for the Appellants, contended that the Prosecution failed to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt, and that PW1 gave self-contradictory account of events. He submitted that PW1 admitted that she left home voluntarily went to Kipkessum and cohabited with her boyfriend Emmanuel for almost a week in the 1st Appellant’s house, that she confirmed that she used to sleep with Emmanuel in one room and had sex several times, and that she had sex with the 1st Appellant when her boyfriend went to the Centre. He observed that Emmanuel was never charged, and submitted that PW1’s testimony was neither coherent, nor credible and the trial Court failed to subject it to Section 124 of the Evidence Act. He submitted that PW1 having been examined on 6/01/2024 and PW1 having stated that she had sex with Emmanuel frequently in the 1st Appellant’s house, the Court ought to have looked at the medical report objectively and considered the possibility that the defilement could have been attributable to the earlier incident. He contended that from the totality of the evidence, it emerges that PW1 and her boyfriend simply borrowed accommodation from the 1st Appellant. Regarding the 2nd Appellant, Counsel submitted that PW1’s testimony was also inconsistent as she categorically denied that she had any sexual contact with her, but later introduced a new allegation that the 2nd Appellant had inserted his finger in her vagina and that Emmanuel intervened. According to Counsel, this late addition was uncorroborated and the said Emmanuel was never called to testify. He also contended that reliance on the medical evidence was irrelevant since “penetration” is not an element of attempted defilement. Regarding the sentence, he submitted that same was manifestly excessive considering that the Appellants were first offenders, youthful, brothers, and had fully co-operated during the trial. He faulted the trial Court for imposing the maximum sentences, and also submitted that the Court should have considered that PW1 had admitted to being in a sexual relationship with Emmanuel. According to him, the actions the subject of this suit were simply acts of youthful indiscretion. He also cited cases in support of the various limbs of her submissions above. Respondent’s Submissions 14.Prosecution Counsel Rachel Mwangi, in her brief Submissions, insisted that the Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding “penetration”, she urged that PW1’s testimony of being defiled by the 1st Appellant was corroborated by PW4, the medic who examined her, and she also cited PW1’s testimony that the 1st Appellant inserted his fingers in her vagina. On the issue of “age”, she pointed out the fact of PW1 being 15 years old was corroborated by the Certificate of Birth. In respect to “identification”, she urged that PW1 positively identified the Appellants, whom she described as brothers, as the people who violated her as they were not strangers to her having stayed and interacted with them for a week. On alleged “contradictions” in the Prosecution witnesses’ testimony, she denied that there were any material discrepancies that could create doubt as to whether the Appellants committed the offences. In respect to “sentence”, she denied that it was harsh or excessive, since, she urged, they were the sentences stipulated by statute. She cited the Supreme Court case, SC Petition (Application) No. E018 of 2023, R v Joshua Gichuki Mwangi NC (2024) KESC34 (KLR). Determination 15.As a first appellate forum, this Court is obligated to revisit and re-evaluate the evidence afresh, assess the same and make its own conclusions bearing in mind that the trial Court had the advantage of hearing and observing the demeanour of the witnesses (See Okeno vs. Republic [1972] E.A 32). 16.Before I delve into the substantive matters, I observe that at pages 6-16 of the Record of Appeal, the Appellant’s Counsel has included what appears to be copies of hand-written Statements presumably made by witnesses to the police. By practice, such statements do not form part of the trial Court record, and should not have therefore been so included in the Record of Appeal filed herein. In any event, there is no indication that the Statements were produced in evidence at the trial Court such that they can now be brought into this Appeal. I shall therefore “close my eyes” to those Statements “sneaked in” as aforesaid. 17.Be that as it may, the issues that I am called up to determine in this Appeal are evidently the following:i.Whether the defilement and attempted defilement charges against the 1st and 2nd Appellants, respectively, were proved beyond reasonable doubt.ii.Whether the sentences of 20, and 10 years, respectively, imprisonment, were justified. 18.Regarding the 1st Appellant, Section 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act under which he was charged, provides as follows: 8.(1)A person who commits an act which causes penetration with a child is guilty of an offence termed defilement.(2)A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve and fifteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than twenty years. 19.It is therefore clear that for the offence of defilement to be established, 3 ingredients must be proved, namely, (i) the age of the victim, (ii) penetration, and (iii) positive identification of the offender. 20.On the part of the 2nd Appellant, the offence of attempted defilement that he faced is found in Section 9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act, which provide as follows:(1)A person who attempts to commit an act which would cause penetration with a child is guilty of an offence termed attempted defilement.(2)A person who commits an offence of attempted defilement with a child is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. 21.From the above definition, it is evident that the ingredients of the offence of attempted defilement, save for “penetration”, are the same ingredients for the offence of defilement cited above. Instead of “penetration”, the Prosecution must prove the steps taken by the accused person to execute the defilement but which steps did not eventually succeed. 22.In this case, proof of the complainant’s age is not challenged. In any event, she testified that she was 15 years old, and her Certificate of Birth produced in evidence indicates that she was born on 16/12/2009. The alleged offences having reportedly occurred on 29/12/2023 and 30/12/2023, respectively, it means that at the relevant time, the complainant was about 14 years old. This therefore dispenses with the ingredient of “age” as it proves that the complainant was below the age of 18 years, and thus a minor. 23.In respect to the charge of defilement that the 1st Appellant faced, “penetration” is defined in Section 2(1) of the Sexual Offences Act as:“The partial or complete insertion of the genital organs of a person into the genital organ of another person.” 24.“Penetration” may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Usually, the sexual intercourse is proved by the victims through testimony, and corroborated by medical or other evidence. 25.In this case, the complainant (PW1) testified that on 29/12/2023, she and her friend, VJ went to a function where she met her boyfriend, Emmanuel, with whom she went to his house together with VJ. She testified that she and VJ slept in one room while Emmanuel slept in a separate room, that on the following day, they all went to the 1st Appellant’s house where they stayed for 1 week, up to 6/01/2024, with herself and Emmanuel sleeping in one room and having regular sex, while VJ and the 1st Appellant slept in another. She testified further that the 1st Appellant also had sex with her “frequently”, and one of which was when her boyfriend, Emmanuel, had gone to the Centre. In cross-examination, she stated that on 5/01/2024, they found the 1st Appellant at a school function and she went with him to another boy’s school house where they had sex. 26.Regarding the 2nd Appellant and the allegation that he inserted his finger in her vagina, the complainant testified that she never had sex with the 2nd Appellant, who, though he came and asked her for sex when the complainant was in the 1st Appellant’s house, she refused, and the 2nd Appellant then went to approach VJ. She reiterated that the 2nd Appellant never did anything to her. She then however added that when she refused the 2nd Appellant’s advances, he forcefully removed her trouser and pant and inserted his fingers in her vagina at which point VJ came and intervened, and Emmanuel also walked in and asked the 2nd Appellant to leave. 27.The primary testimony against the Appellants was that given by the complainant. There being no independent eye-witness called to testify, the case basically turned entirely on her testimony as a single eye-witness. That the law requires corroboration of the testimony of a minor where such minor is the sole or single witnesses is clear from Section 124 of the Evidence Act. However, there is the proviso to that very section to the effect that, in cases of sexual offences, where the single eye-witness is the victim, there need not be corroboration if the trial Court believes that the minor-victim told the truth and record its reasons for believing so. The Section and the proviso are premised as follows:“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 19 of the Oaths and Statutory Declaration Act, where the evidence of the victim admitted in accordance with that section on behalf of the prosecution in proceedings against any person for an offence, the Appellant shall not be liable to be convicted on such evidence unless it is corroborated by other evidence in support thereof implicating him.”Provided that where in a criminal case involving a sexual offence the only evidence is that of the alleged victim of the offence, the court shall receive the evidence of the alleged victim and proceed to convict the Appellant person, if, for reasons to be recorded in the proceedings, the court is satisfied that the alleged victim is telling the truth.” 28.Inclusion of the above proviso was a wise decision as the drafters recognized that sexual assaults frequently happen behind closed doors with only the perpetrator and victim present, making independent eye-witness testimony very rare. From the above, it is clear that the proviso to Section 124 of the Evidence Act permitted the trial Magistrate, as she did, to convict on the sole evidence of the complainant as she was the victim of the sexual offence, as the trial Magistrate was satisfied that the complainant was being truthful. However, existence of the proviso does not at all exempt or absolve the Prosecution from its duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, nor does it excuse the Prosecution from its obligation to present a well-investigated case. 29.In this case, the complainant’s testimony was, in my view very shaky in implicating the Appellants. The cogent and persuasive portion of her testimony was that among all the men or boys mentioned, it was Emmanuel who was her boyfriend, who then on 29/12/2023, approached and asked the 1st Appellant to give him space in his house to spend time with PW1, his girlfriend, which request the 1st Appellant accepted and gave out one room to the them. The other convincing part of the complainant’s testimony was that she had also brought her friend, VJ, who she “handed over” to the 1st Appellant, and that they stayed in the 1st Appellant’s house for one week, up to 6/01/2024, when their stay there was “discovered” and they were all arrested. Another clear portion of her testimony was that since the 1st Appellant’s had 2 rooms, during their stay there, while she and Emmanuel used to sleep and have regular sex in one room, her friend, VJ, and the 1st Appellant used to sleep in a separate room. 30.While the complainant’s testimony implicating Emmanuel was very clear, cogent, flawless and consistent, the part implicating the Appellants, was in my view, so half-hearted, scanty, devoid of details, and inconsistent. Regarding the Appellants, she did not give clear sequence of events, contradicted herself in several instances, and as described by Mr. Tarigo, was disturbingly incoherent. For instance, while at one point, she stated that the 2nd Appellant “never did anything” to her, on the other hand, she claimed that the 2nd Appellant tried to defile her and removed her trousers and pant and inserted his fingers in her vagina. PW2, the area Assistant Chief also testified that when she arrested the girls, they told her that they had slept with “various boys” who were however not in the crowd, and mentioned the said Emmanuel and one “Eugene”. PW3 also stated as much and also mentioned “Emmanuel” and “Eugene”. It is however curious that nowhere in her testimony did the complainant, herself, mention this alleged “Eugene”. Where then did this name suddenly pop-up from? Why did the complainant herself, not mention it in her testimony? I also observe that it was also only in cross-examination that the Assistant Chief added that the girls also told her that the 2nd Appellant also came and attempted to defile her, and that the 1st Appellant also had sex with her. Was this additional testimony an afterthought brought out only in cross-examination? Although the complainant also testified that the 1st Appellant also had sex with her “frequently”, she did not give any descriptions, or give the dates when these “frequent” sexual acts with the 1st Appellant allegedly occurred. Further, save for one instance in which she alleged that she had sex with the 1st Appellant when Emmanuel (her boyfriend) had gone to the Centre, she never disclosed where Emmanuel and all the other involved persons, especially VJ, her friend, who had become the 1st Appellant’s sex partner during their stay there, were at all these “frequent” occasions. Did all these other people, particularly VJ, know about it and if so, did they approve of it? The complainant does not tell us. 31.I also note that the complainant, in one portion of her testimony, testified that herself and VJ were both arrested at the 1st Appellant’s house. However, in another portion, she stated that VJ was arrested at the 1st Appellant’s house, while she (complainant) was herself arrested at her aunt’s place. PW1, the Clinical Officer, also testified that the complainant told her that the perpetrator used a condom. However, the complainant, in her own testimony, never made this disclosure at all. Although some of these contradictions and inconstancies may not appear very material to the issue at hand, they do raise doubts on the complainant’s credibility, particularly in a case such as the instant one in which she is basically the sole substantive witness, and in which the persons accused are facing a very long jail term if convicted. 32.I agree that the medical evidence produced demonstrated that the complainant had been recently defiled. However, as the medical evidence could not have also established the identity of the perpetrator, it was upon the Prosecution to demonstrate that, apart from the complainant’s boyfriend, Emmanuel, the 1st Appellant had around the same period of time, also defiled the complainant. I am afraid that the evidence on record, which was basically in terms of only the complainant’s testimony, did not, in my view, sufficiently establish that the 1st Appellant did also defile her. The same applies to the complainant’s testimony relied upon by the Prosecution to allege that the 2nd Appellant attempted to defile her and inserted his fingers in her vagina. It, too, was very scanty and shaky. 33.The Appellants may very well have committed the offences alleged. However, a Court of law cannot engage in speculation or make determinations on the basis of suspicions alone. It was the Prosecution’s obligation to present before the Court cogent and watertight evidence that would rule out any other possible explanations for what transpired and thus conclusively pin down the Appellants with the charge. In this case, the Prosecution failed to discharge that burden. If the Appellants indeed committed the offences, then the mishandling of the case has opened a window for them to escape justice. 34.In view of the foregoing, I find the existence of weighty grounds to fault the trial Magistrate for reaching the finding that the Prosecution discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was insufficient to convict, and the several contradictions and inconsistencies highlighted above were also, not only significant but, in my view, also quite material in that they created doubts in the Prosecution’s case, which doubts the Appellants were entitled to benefit from in law. Under these circumstances, it was clearly unsafe to convict the Appellants. Accordingly, I find enough reason to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court. The case was therefore, in my view, not proven beyond reasonable doubt. 35.In view thereof, do not find any need to interrogate and/or determine the rest of the grounds urged by the Appellants. Final Orders: 36.In view of the findings made hereinabove, this Appeal succeeds and is allowed. I hereby order as follows:i. The conviction of the 1st and 2nd Appellants by the trial Court in Iten Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court (Sexual Offences) Case No. E001 of 2024 for the charge of defilement and attempted defilement, respectively, is hereby quashed and the sentences imposed therein set aside in their entirety.ii.Accordingly, the Appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.................................WANANDA JOHN R. ANUROJUDGEDelivered in the presence of:Both Appellants present virtually from Eldoret Main PrisonMs. Rono h/b for Mr. Tarigo for the AppellantsMs. Mwangi for the StateCourt Assistant: Rodgers Tshombe