Okwiri v Republic (Criminal Appeal E002 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 4823 (KLR) (17 April 2026) (Judgment)

Okwiri v Republic (Criminal Appeal E002 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 4823 (KLR) (17 April 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 4823 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Siaya Criminal Appeal E002 of 2025 DK Kemei, J April 17, 2026 Between Lawrence Ochieng Okwiri Appellant and Republic Respondent (Being an appeal from the judgment of Hon. T. K . Nambisia (RM) in Ukwala PMCR SO. No. E017 of 2023 dated 8th January 2025) Judgment 1.The appeal herein arises from the judgment of Hon. T. K. Nambisia (RM) in Ukwala PMCR S.O No. E017 of 2023 dated 8th January 2025 wherein she convicted and sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment for the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. 2.Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the Appellant filed his Petition of Appeal dated 13th January 2024 wherein he raised the following grounds of appeal six (6) grounds of appeal:i)That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to uphold the Appellant’s right to a fair trial under Article 50 of the Constitution, resulting in a trial that failed to meet the requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.ii)That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by dismissing the Appellant’s sworn defence statement regarding the existence of a grudge, erroneously treating it as an afterthought despite the defence being cogent, reasonable, and capable of raising doubt regarding the Appellant’s guilt.iii)That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to take judicial notice of, and give due consideration to, the Appellant’s pre-existing mental condition, which was a critical factor mitigating both the Appellant's criminal liability and the appropriate sentence.iv)That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to adequately consider the medical evidence regarding the Appellant's mental health, specifically the fact that the Appellant was admitted to a mental hospital for a period of six months during the pendency of the trial, which impacted his ability to conduct a proper defence.v)That the sentence imposed of life imprisonment was manifestly excessive and harsh in the circumstances, particularly given the Appellant's mental health history, and failed to consider the principles of proportionality in sentencing.vi)That the conviction was against the weight of the evidence adduced during the trial. 3.The Appellant herein was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. The particulars are that on the 13th day of July, 2023 at about 1800 hours at [Particulars Withheld], Umala Sub-location in Ugunja Sub-county within Siaya County, intentionally caused his penis to penetrate the vagina of M.A.O, a child aged 11 years.In the alternative, the Appellant was charged with committing an indecent act with a child contrary to section 11(1) of the Sexual offences Act No. 3 of 2006. The particulars are that on the 13th day of July, 2023 at about 1800 hours at [Particulars Withheld], Umala Sub-location in Ugunja Sub-County in Siaya County intentionally and unlawfully touched the vagina of M.A.O. a child aged 11 years with his penis. 4.Being a first-time appeal, the Court’s duty is to consider the evidence presented to the trial Court with caution that it neither heard nor saw the witnesses. In Okeno – VS – Republic (1972) EA 32, it was held that;“An appellant is entitled to expect the evidence as a whole to be submitted to a fresh and exhaustive examination and to the Appellate court’s own decision on the evidence. The first appellate court must itself weigh conflicting evidence and draw its own conclusions. It is not the function of the first appellate court merely to scrutinize the evidence to see if there was some evidence to support the lower court’s findings and conclusions; it must make its own findings and conclusions. Only then can it decide whether the magistrate’s findings can be supported. In doing so, it should make an allowance for the fact that the trial court has had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses.’’ 5.The brief summary of the record is that the Appellant pleaded not guilty to all the charges and the case went to full trial in which the prosecution called four (4) witnesses. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the court found that the Appellant had a case to answer and consequently placed him on his defense under section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Appellant opted to tender a sworn testimony wherein he averred that he had been framed over a land dispute matter with one of his relatives. By the judgment delivered on 8th January 2025, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to serve life imprisonment and which has precipitated to this appeal. 6.We propose the following issues for determination as may be deduced from the grounds of Appeal on the face of the Petition of Appeal dated 13th January, 2024:a.Whether the prosecution’s case was proved beyond reasonable doubt.b.Whether the Appellant’s defense cast any doubts on the prosecution’s case?c.Whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances? 7M. A. O. (PW1) a minor was subjected to a voire dire examination by the learned trial magistrate who directed her to give unsworn testimony. She testified that she was 11 years old and a student at [Particulars Withheld] Primary School. She recounted that on 13th July, 2023, at around 6:00 pm, the Appellant, whom she knew as Ochieng, called her as she was heading home from school. She stated that he led her to a bush, instructed her to lie down, removed her panty, and proceeded to defile her. She testified that after the act, he wiped her private parts with a cloth and warned her not to tell anyone. She further stated that she returned home and did not initially report the incident as no adults were present. That the following day, while harvesting maize with her grandmother, she walked with difficulty, which prompted her grandmother to question her. She eventually revealed that Ochieng had defiled her after her grandmother threatened to harm both of them if she did not tell the truth. They proceeded to Ambira Hospital for examination and later reported the matter to Ugunja Police Station.On cross-examination, the minor maintained that the Appellant was the perpetrator and denied that anyone had coerced her into giving false testimony. She affirmed that the incident occurred in Umala and not Nyaugenya as suggested by the Appellant. She concluded by stating that the Appellant was known to her family as he had previously visited their home for prayer sessions. 8.. JAO (PW2) was the complainant’s grandmother who testified that on 13th July, 2023, she returned home in the evening and later noticed the minor walking with difficulty on the following day while they were harvesting maize. That when she inquired about the minor's condition, the child initially claimed that her knees were hurting, but upon further probing, she revealed that the Appellant, known for singing Christian songs in the village, had defiled her. The witness identified the Appellant in court as Petronila’s grandson. That she immediately reported the matter to the area assistant chief, Grace, who advised her to take the child to the hospital. She escorted the minor to Ambira Hospital, where they obtained treatment notes, which she produced as evidence. She later handed over the medical documents to the police at Ugunja Police Station.On cross-examination, she stated that she knew the Appellant as the grandson of Petronila Okwiri, a villager. She reiterated that she had taken the necessary steps to seek medical attention for the child and report the alleged incident to the authorities. She maintained her account of the events leading to the report. 9.No. 53610 PC Lucy Atieno (PW3) was the Investigating Officer attached to Ugunja Police Station testified that on 15th July, 2023, the minor's grandmother reported the defilement incident. She recorded that the child was 11 years old and had been defiled by a person known to her on 13th July, 2023, near their home. She stated that the Appellant had lured the child into a bush, removed her underwear, and penetrated her before warning her against disclosure to anyone. She confirmed that the child had been taken to Ambira Hospital for medical examination and treatment. She produced the minor's birth certificate to prove her age, the P3 form, and the PRC form as exhibits. She detailed that the birth certificate showed the minor was born on August 18, 2012, confirming she was 11 years old at the time of the offence. That she informed the court that upon approval of charges by the ODPP, she instructed officers from Umina Police Post to arrest the Appellant. During cross-examination, she clarified that she was not the examining doctor and did not conduct the medical tests herself. She confirmed that the Appellant was arrested and charged based on the report made by the complainant's family. 10.Joshua Oduor Okoth (PW4) a Clinical Officer from Ambira Sub county Hospital testified regarding on his examination of the minor on 15th July, 2023. He stated that the patient had been brought in with a history of defilement that occurred on 13th July, 2023. That upon general examination, he noted that her panty had clear stains, and that a genital examination revealed bruises on the labia minora and a broken hymen. He further testified that the examination revealed the presence of bloody and white discharge from the vagina. That a high vaginal swab confirmed the presence of spermatozoa, while a urinalysis test showed numerous pus cells. He filled out the P3 form detailing the extent of the injuries and the medical findings consistent with the history provided.On cross-examination, the witness maintained his professional findings as recorded in the medical documents. He confirmed that the medical evidence supported the history of penetration. He produced the P3 form as an exhibit to corroborate the charge of defilement. 11.The Appellant Lawrence Ochieng Okwiri (DW1) gave sworn testimony stating that on 13th July, 2023, he was working at a homestead known as Pilaster's from 6:00 am until 9:00 am, after which he worked on a farm until 3:00 pm. He claimed that he was later arrested at Julius Arima’s farm in the Nzoia area by police officers accompanied by a lady he could not name. He denied committing the offence, stating that he was taken to Umina Police Post and subsequently transferred to Ugunja Police Station. He testified that he knew the complainant well as she was his relative. He claimed that the allegations against him were fabricated due to a land dispute involving a family member named Benter Apondi. He alleged that the area chief, Grace Oloo, was aware of the dispute but noted that she had since passed away in 2023. He maintained his innocence and asserted that he was falsely accused. He argued that there was no altercation between him and the complainant’s family outside of the land issue. He concluded by denying any involvement in the defilement of the minor as alleged. 12.When considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Magistrate observed that the defense brought by the Appellant did not in any way cast doubt on the prosecution’s case and convicted him under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 13.The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. Both parties duly complied. 14.I have considered the record of appeal and the submissions tendered. I find the issue for determination is whether the Respondent proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 15.The Respondent was under duty to prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. See Woolmington Vs Dpp [1935] AC 462. In order to prove the offence of defilement, the prosecution must prove three essential ingredients thereof namely age of the victim (must be a minor), penetration, and the proper identification of the perpetrator. These ingredients are provided for under section 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006 and must each be proved for a conviction to be arrived at.“Section 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006 provides as follows: -(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 aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life.(3)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.(4)A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of sixteen and eighteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen years.(5)It is a defence to a charge under this section if -(a)it is proved that such child, deceived the accused person into believing that he or she was over the age of eighteen years at the time of the alleged commission of the offence; and(b)the accused reasonably believed that the child was over the age of eighteen years.(6)The belief referred to in subsection (5) (b) is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps the accused person took to ascertain the age of the complainant.(7)Where the person charged with an offence under this Act is below the age of eighteen years, the court may upon conviction, sentence the accused person in accordance with the provisions of the Borstal Institutions Act and the Children’s Act.(8)The provisions of subsection (5) shall not apply if the accused person is related to such child within the prohibited degrees. 16.As regards the aspect of age, the same is quite crucial as the sentence to be imposed upon conviction is pegged upon it,since under the Sexual Offences Act, the prescribed sentence is determined by the age of the victim. The Court of Appeal in Edwin Nyambogo Onsongo vs. Republic (2016) eKLR stated as follows in respect of proving the age of a victim in cases of defilement:“... the question of proof of age has finally been settled by recent decisions of this court to the effect that it can be proved by documents, evidence such as a birth certificate, baptism card or by oral evidence of the child if the child is sufficiently intelligent or the evidence of the parents or guardian or medical evidence, among other credible forms of proof. We think that what ought to be stressed is that whatever the nature of evidence preferred in proof of the victim’s age, it has to be credible and reliable.” (emphasis added).Section 2 of the Children’s Act defines a child as a person under the age of eighteen (18) years. There are various ways which can be used to prove a victim’s age as held in Mwalango Chichoro Mwajembe V Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2015 (UR) where the court stated as follows:“……..the question of proof of age has finally been settled by a recent decisions of this court to the effect that it can be proved by documentary evidence such as a birth certificate, baptism card or by oral evidence of the child if the child is sufficiently intelligent or the evidence of the parents or guardian or medical evidence, among other credible forms of proof” It has even been held in a long line of decisions from the High Court that age can also be proved by observation and common sense. (See Denis Kinywa -Vs- Republic Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2014) and (Omar Ucher -Vs- Republic Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2015). We doubt if the courts are possessed of requisite expertise to assess age by merely observing the victim since in a criminal trial the threshold is beyond any reasonable doubt. This form of proof is a direct influence by the decisions of the Court of Appeal of Uganda in Francis Omuroni -Vs- Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2000. We think that what ought to be stressed is that whatever the nature of evidence presented in proof of the victim’s age, it has to be credible and reliable...”In this instance, the prosecution produced a birth certificate (Exhibit 1) indicating that the minor was born on 18th August, 2012, placing her as one month five days shy of 11 years at the time of the offence. This documentary proof was further corroborated by the unsworn testimony of PW1, who stated that she was 11 years old.The significance of proving the exact age was further emphasized in Fappyton Mutuku Ngui v Republic [2014] eKLR, where the court held that "failure to determine the exact age of the victim can be fatal to the prosecution case," particularly because the Sexual Offences Act imposes graduated sentences based on specific age brackets. Since the complainant was found to be one month five days shy of 11 years old, she fell within the bracket of a child aged 11 years and below under Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. The production of the birth certificate provided the precise age necessary to avoid the evidentiary gaps often criticized in cases relying solely on visual estimation or medical assessments. 17.It is noted that the Appellant did not contest the age of the minor in his grounds of appeal, focusing instead on the alleged grudge and the trial process. The trial magistrate properly relied on the birth certificate as conclusive proof of age. This aligns with the holding in Evans Wamalwa Simiyu v Republic [2016] eKLR, where the court affirmed that a birth certificate is sufficient proof of age in the absence of a baptismal card or medical certificate. Consequently, the ingredient of age was established beyond a reasonable doubt through credible documentary evidence, satisfying the first threshold for a defilement charge. 18.As regards the aspect of penetration, section 2 of the Sexual offences Act No. 3 of 200 defines "penetration" as the partial or complete insertion of the genital organs of a person into the genital organs of another person. Penetration is proved through the evidence of the victim. The testimony of the victim in this case coupled with evidence from other witnesses such as the clinical officer was sufficient to determine whether penetration occurred. Section 124 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80 provides 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 the proceedings against any person for an offence, the accused shall not be liable to be convicted in proceedings against him 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 offense, the court shall receive the evidence of the alleged victim and proceed to convict the accused person, if for reasons to be recorded in the proceedings, the court is satisfied that the alleged victim is telling the truth.”In the case of Bassita vs. Uganda S.C. Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1995, the Supreme Court of Uganda had the following to say in respect of proving penetration: -“The act of sexual intercourse or penetration may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Usually the sexual intercourse is proved by the victim’s own evidence and corroborated by the medical evidence or other evidence. Though desirable, it is not hard and fast rule that the victim’s evidence and medical evidence must always be adduced in every case of defilement to prove sexual intercourse or penetration. Whatever evidence the prosecution may wish to adduce, to prove its case, such evidence must be such that is sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.”In the present case, the prosecution relied on the corroborated testimony of the victim and medical evidence. PW1 gave a clear and graphic account of the ordeal, stating that the Appellant lay on top of her and inserted his "kitu yake ya kukojoa" into her "kitu yangu ya kukojoa." This description, though given in unsworn testimony, was consistent and detailed. In any case, the victim was duly cross-examined by the Appellant. The Court of Appeal in Elias Kipng’etich Mutai v Republic [2016] eKLR affirmed that the evidence of a child victim of tender years, if believed, is sufficient to found a conviction even without corroboration, provided the court records reasons for believing the child. The trial magistrate, having conducted a voire dire examination, was satisfied that PW1 possessed sufficient intelligence and appreciated the importance of telling the truth, thus acting on her unsworn evidence.Again, the medical evidence presented by PW4, the Clinical Officer, provided crucial corroboration for the allegation of penetration. PW4 testified that upon examination, he found bruises on the minor's labia minora, a broken hymen, and the presence of bloody and white discharge. Crucially, a high vaginal swab revealed the presence of spermatozoa. I find these findings are consistent with recent penetration. In Mark Oiruri Mose v Republic [2013] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that penetration is primarily proved by the victim's own evidence, but medical evidence acts as supportive proof. The broken hymen and presence of spermatozoa directly contradicted the Appellant's defense that he was falsely accused due to a land dispute, showing that a sexual act had indeed occurred.Regarding the Appellant's defense that the trial court failed to consider his mental condition, this ground does not negate the fact of penetration. The medical evidence and the victim's testimony establish the actus reus of the offence irrespective of the Appellant's mental state, which would only be relevant to the issue of criminal capacity (insanity defense) or sentencing. The trial magistrate correctly evaluated the evidence on record and found that the element of penetration was satisfied. The consistency between the victim's narrative of "insertion" and the clinical findings of a broken hymen and spermatozoa leaves no doubt that penetration was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the second ingredient, namely, penetration, was adequately proved based on the victim’s evidence and the medical evidence. 19.As regards the aspect of positive identification of the Appellant as the perpetrator, the Court of Appeal in Wamunga v Republic [1989] KLR 426 emphasized that evidence regarding identification must be scrutinized to avoid the risk of wrongful conviction. In the present case, the Appellant was not a stranger to the complainant. PW1 testified clearly that she knew the Appellant as "Ochieng," a person who frequently visited their home to pray with the family. She identified him confidently in court, pointing him out at the dock without hesitation. This falls under the category of recognition rather than visual identification of a stranger. In Anjononi and Others v Republic [1980] KLR 59, the court held that recognition of an assailant is more satisfactory, more assuring, and more reliable than the identification of a stranger because it relies on the witness's prior knowledge of the assailant. It is noted that the offence occurred at 6:00 pm, which was during daylight, providing favourable conditions for identification. PW1 recounted that the Appellant called her by the roadside before leading her to the bush. The interaction was not fleeting; the Appellant spoke to her, walked with her to the bush, and spent time with her during the commission of the act. The Appellant’s defence of an alibi—that he was working elsewhere—was considered by the trial court but weighed against the compelling testimony of the victim. Under Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code and as established in Uganda v Sebyala [1969] EA 204, an alibi defence must be weighed against the strength of the prosecution's case. Since PW1 positively identified the Appellant as the perpetrator she knew, the alibi was rightfully rejected.The appellant alleged that the case was fabricated due to a land dispute. However, the trial magistrate found no evidence to support this motive. The Court of Appeal in Ndung'u Kimanyi v Republic [1979] KLR 282 held that a witness’s prior acquaintance with the accused removes the possibility of honest mistake. Given that PW1 knew the Appellant by name and sight, the likelihood of error in identification was eliminated. The trial court properly evaluated the evidence and found the identification to be clear, consistent, and free from error. Hence, the ingredient of identification was proved beyond reasonable doubt. 20.Going by the above evidence, it is clear that the cumulative and conjunctive elements in a charge of defilement were all proved and that the evidence was consistent and corroborative hence sufficient to convict the Appellant for the offence. The Appellant’s defence evidence did not shake that of the Respondent which was overwhelming against him. It is highly unlikely that the parents of the victim could use their vulnerable and young daughter as a victim of sexual assault so as to settle scores with the Appellant. Hence, the finding on conviction by the trial court was quite sound and must be upheld. 21.As regards sentence, it is noted that the trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment pursuant to Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, which prescribes this penalty for the defilement of a child aged eleven years or below. While the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR declared mandatory minimum sentences unconstitutional, it affirmed that courts must consider the gravity of the offense and the specific circumstances before sentencing. Again, the said court in Supreme Court Petition No. 18 of 2023 Republic Vs Joshua Gichuki and Others held that minimum sentences under the Sexual Offences are lawful until the same are declared unconstitutional.In Jared Koita Injiri v Republic [2019] eKLR, the Court of Appeal upheld a life sentence for defilement of a minor, noting that despite the discretion granted by Muruatetu, the severity of the crime against a child of tender years justifies the harshest penalty. The trial magistrate exercised this discretion judicially, noting the mandatory nature of the provision and the need to deter such conduct. 22.In the case of Shadrack Kipkoech Kogo - vs - R. Eldoret Criminal Appeal No.253 of 2003 the Court of Appeal stated thus as regards interference with sentence: -“sentence is essentially an exercise of discretion by the trial court and for this court to interfere it must be shown that in passing the sentence, the sentencing court took into account an irrelevant factor or that a wrong principle was applied or that short of these, the sentence itself is so excessive and therefore an error of principle must be interfered (see also Sayeka –vs- R. (1989 KLR 306)”The Court of Appeal in Bernard Kimani Gacheru vs. Republic [2002] eKLR restated that:“It is now settled law, following several authorities by this Court and by the High Court, that sentence is a matter that rests in the discretion of the trial court. Similarly, sentence must depend on the facts of each case. On appeal, the appellate court will not easily interfere with sentence unless, that sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case, or that the trial court overlooked some material factor, or took into account some wrong material, or acted on a wrong principle. Even if, the Appellate Court feels that the sentence is heavy and that the Appellate Court might itself not have passed that sentence, these alone are not sufficient grounds for interfering with the discretion of the trial court on sentence unless, anyone of the matters already states is shown to exist.” (Emphasis added) 23.The sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court was lawful and justified, strictly adhering to the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. This provision mandates a life sentence for any person convicted of defiling a child aged eleven years or below. The prosecution proved the age of the victim to be one month five days shy of 11 years through a birth certificate, thereby satisfying the statutory threshold for the sentence. In Maurice Ochieng Magadogo v Republic [2019] eKLR, the Court of Appeal upheld the legality of mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offences where the legislature has clearly defined the penalty based on the age of the victim. Therefore, the trial magistrate acted within the law by imposing the prescribed sentence to deter such heinous acts against children. 24.Regarding the Appellant's mental health, the record shows that the trial court fully complied with the due process before the trial commenced. The Appellant was referred to Mathari Hospital for mental assessment, where he was admitted for six months. Crucially, he was subsequently discharged and declared fit to plead and stand trial. Under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the holding in Republic v Meshack Mwiti [2022] eKLR, a finding of fitness to plead is conclusive evidence that an accused person possesses the mental capacity to conduct their defense. Indeed, when the Appellant was presented to court for the further hearing of the matter after a break, he stated to the trial court that he wanted his case expedited. Further, the Appellant remained active and alert throughout the trial and cross-examined the witnesses at length. This does not show about a person with mental challenges. Consequently, the Appellant's prior admission does not serve as a mitigating factor to reduce the sentence, as he was deemed fit and criminally liable at the time of sentencing. 25.Finally, while the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR removed the mandatory nature of death sentences, the principles therein should be applied sparingly in defilement cases involving extremely young victims. The psychological trauma inflicted on the 11-year-old victim, evidenced by the injuries and presence of spermatozoa, warrants a severe custodial sentence. The offense was premeditated, and that the Appellant abused the trust of a family member as the minor trusted him as he used to visit their home to conduct prayers. Given the gravity of the offence and the vulnerability of the victim, the life sentence serves the interests of justice and public policy. The Appellant has not demonstrated that there exists any reason for this court to interfere with the sentence. Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006 provides that the sentence for the offence of defilement is imprisonment for life. I find the sentence of life imprisonment was not only lawful but warranted in the circumstances. 26.In view of the foregoing observations, it is my finding that the Appellant’s appeal is devoid of any merit. The same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the trial court is hereby upheld. DATED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA THIS 17 TH DAY OF APRIL 2026. D.KEMEI JUDGEIn the presence of:Lawrence Ochieng Okwiri.........Appellant.Soita.......................for Respondent.Maurine................Court Assistant.