https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9408

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG'A** **CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. E035 OF 2025** **PETER GITAU KIGURU ................................................. APPELLANT** **VERSUS** **REPUBLIC .......................................................................... RESPONDENT** *(Being an Appeal from the Judgment of Hon. C.N. Ndumia (SRM) in Kangema Criminal Case No. E261 of 2024 delivered on 25th day of March, 2025)* **JUDGMENT** 1. The Appellant was charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to **Section 296(2)** of the **Penal Code**. The particulars of the charge were that on 4th April 2024 at around 3:20 a.m. at Thirikwa trading Centre, Kangema Sub-County, within Murang'a County, jointly with others not before court and while armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a knife, he robbed Hellen Wambui Mwangi of a mobile phone make SUNCREAM, Safaricom and Airtel cards valued at Kshs.3,000/= and cash kshs.6900/= and immediately after the time of such robbery, used actual violence and wounded the said Hellen Wambui Mwangi. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he lodged the present Appeal. He has listed the following grounds: 3. *THAT, the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact by conducting the trial in a manner that violated the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing, by failing to adequately inform the Appellant of his right to legal representation and by proceeding with the trial without providing or facilitating legal representation where the interests of justice so required, contrary to Articles 25(c), 50(2)(b), (c), (g) and (h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, thereby rendering the entire trial unfair, unconstitutional, and a nullity.* 4. *THAT, the trial magistrate erred in law and facts by passing a conviction and a sentence of 30 years imprisonment on evidence of identification by PW1, PW2 and PW3 but failed to note that the circumstances were too difficult for positive identification and there was no advance report on this identification made to the police.* 5. *THAT, the trial magistrate erred in law and facts by basing his conviction and sentence on evidence of identification parade which was flawed.* 6. *THAT, the trial magistrate erred in law and facts by convicting and sentencing the appellant in a prosecution case but failed to note that, the elements of the charge of robbery with violence as defined under section 296 (2) of the penal code were not proved.* 7. The Appeal was heard by way of Written Submissions. **Appellant’s Submissions** 1. It is the Appellant’s submission that the trial was a nullity as the court failed to inform him of his constitutional right to be represented by an advocate of his choice or at State expense. He argues that this omission was a constitutional violation of **Articles 50(2)(g) and (h)**, which impose a mandatory duty upon the trial court to inform an accused person of these rights at the earliest opportunity. He has relied on the decision in Fraser v ABSA Bank Ltd (2007), where the court held that *“fairness in adjudication is inseparable from effective legal representation”*. 2. He further relies on the court’s decision in ***Chacha Mwita v Republic*** and ***N.M.T alias Aunty v Republic***, where the courts held that *“proceedings conducted without advising an accused of the right to counsel in serious offences are unconstitutional and a nullity”*. He has also referred to the high Court's position in ***Joseph Kiema Philip v Republic (2019) eKLR***, which stated that *“advise on the right to legal representation must be done at the earliest opportunity and must be clearly recorded, failure to which is fatal as it offends the non-derogable right to a fair trial”*. 3. On the evidence of visual identification, the Appellant submits that the conviction was primarily founded on the testimony of PW1, with PW2 and PW3 merely repeating what they were told. He contends that the nighttime and the early hours of the morning were not conducive for positive identification. In this regard, he relies on ***Joseph Ngumbau Nzalo v Republic (1991) KAR 212***, where the court held that *“a careful direction on prevailing conditions and the possibility of error is essential”*. He further relies on ***Samuel Gichuhi v Republic(2017) eKLR***, which held that *“where the distance, lighting and circumstances are unclear, identification is unsafe,”* and ***Bernard Kivuti Muthee & Another v Republic***, where the Court of Appeal found that *“identification using torchlight at night, without proper analysis of conditions, is prone to error”*. He cites ***Ndungu Kimanyi v Republic(1979) KLR 282*** to argue that *“evidence of a witness of doubtful credibility makes it unsafe to convict”*. Finally, he relies on ***Simon Kangethe v Republic (2014) eKLR***, guided by ***R v Turnbull (1976) 3 All ER 549***, to reiterate that identification evidence *“must be absolutely watertight,”* a standard he claims was not met in this case. 4. Regarding the identification parade, the Appellant submits that it was fatally flawed and cannot support a conviction. He relies on ***Ajode v Republic(2004) 2 KLR 81***, where the Court of Appeal held that *“a witness must give a prior description before a parade is conducted,”* a requirement he claims was missing here. He further argues that the parade was unnecessary and prejudicial because the complainant admitted to knowing him previously, which offends the principles in ***Simon Kihanya Kairu & Another v Republic*** and ***Samuel Kilonzo Musau v Republic***. He contends there was a failure to comply with Police Force Standing Orders, citing ***David Mwita Wanja & Others v Republic*** and ***Njihia v Republic*** to show that such failure *“substantially diminishes the evidential value of identification”*. 5. Lastly, the Appellant submits that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of robbery with violence. He relies on ***Woolmington v DPP***, which affirmed the *“golden thread that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt”*. He further relies on ***Donald Atemua Sipendi v Republic (2019) eKLR***, arguing that since no dangerous weapon was recovered or produced, the offence *“may amount to simple robbery and not robbery with violence”*. **Respondent’s Submissions** 1. It is the respondent’s submission that the prosecution proved the charge of robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt. 2. On the legal elements required to sustain such a conviction, the Respondent relies on the Court of Appeal decision in ***Johana Ndungu vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1995),*** which set out the essential ingredients of the offence as follows: *“i. If the offender is armed with any dangerous weapon or instrument; or ii. If he is in the company with one or more other person or persons, or; iii. If at or immediately after the time of the robbery, he wounds, beats, strikes or uses violence to any person”*. 3. It is the Respondent’s submission that proof of any one of these ingredients is sufficient for a conviction. They contend that the first ingredient was proved through the testimony of PW1, who stated the perpetrator was armed with a knife, and the third ingredient was established via medical evidence and testimonies from PW2 to PW10, confirming the victim sustained multiple cut wounds and that a large amount of blood was found at the scene. 4. Regarding the identification of the Appellant, the Respondent submits that PW1 was able to see and recognize the accused person as Peter Gitau; a person she knew previously from work; initially by the light of a torch and subsequently by moonlight. 5. The Respondent further points to the evidence of a formal identification parade where PW1 positively identified the Appellant by touching him, a process they submit was corroborated by PW9.On the Appellant’s defence it is submitted that defence, that the trial court was only required to weigh the prosecution's case against the defence, and in this instance, the court properly rejected the Appellant’s version of events for lacking credibility. 6. On the matter of the 30-year sentence, the Respondent submits that it was lawful; and that **Section 333(2)** of the **Criminal Procedure Code**, was complied with. **Summary of the Evidence** 1. PW1, wasthe complainant. She testified that on 4th April 2024 at 3:20 a.m., she was at her shop when she heard a loud noise. Earlier on, at about 11.20 pm she had heard noises which sounded like someone was cutting iron sheets. At the 3.20 the noises were louder. She called Joseph Waweru, but Joseph was taking a while to come, and hence she decided to call a Mr. Mareli to tell a Mr. Moses to go and assist her. At that point she heard someone approaching behind her and stabbed her two times on the neck. She tried to run but was again stabbed on fingers. She begged him not to kill her. The attacker asked for money. She removed ksh. 6,600 from somewhere in the shop and gave him. He protested that the money was little. 2. She told the court that the assailant then forced her to open the shop padlocks. She stated that while she was struggling with a bunch of keys, the light from the assailant’s torch reflected on his face, allowing her to see him clearly. He asked her why she was looking at him. She denied, and told him she was trying to open the door. They both stepped out. On the verandah of the house he asked her if she knew him, but she denied as she sensed that he would kill her if she said otherwise. He then told her to go back to the house. However, after the assailant left She started calling for help. She went to the neighbours and found that Gitau and waweru had woken up. She told them that the attacker was one peter Waweru. She identified the perpetrator as the Appellant, Peter Gitau, whom she knew previously as she had given him casual work and had seen him around their plot multiple times. She added that there was also moonshine at the time which aided her visibility. 3. The Appellant participated in an identification parade which was conducted on 21st April 2024, where she positively identified the Appellant by touching him. 4. She produced several exhibits, including a phone receipt for a suncream mobile phone valued at Ksh. 1,500, her trading license, a P3 form, and treatment notes. Under cross-examination, she maintained that she was able to identify the Appellant by both his face and his voice. 5. PW2**, was** a neighbour to the complainant. He testified that on 4th April 2024 at around 3:00 a.m., he received a call from his neighbour, one Joseph Waweru (PW6), informing him that there people who were attempting to break into the shop belonging to Mama Kui (PW1). He proceeded to Waweru’s house via the back gate, where he found the complainant soaked in blood. He testified that upon asking her what had happened, she immediately informed him that she had been stabbed by Peter Gitau. 6. He further stated that they visited the complainant's shop and found a large amount of blood, noting that while the shop was open, the items inside appeared to be in order. PW2 assisted in calling another neighbour, one Moses Mugo (PW4), whose vehicle was used to take the complainant to Murang’a Hospital, while PW2 and Waweru remained behind at the shop. 7. He testified that because they knew who had attacked the complainant, the community decided to take action that morning, leading to the Appellant’s arrest at his home. 8. Under cross-examination, he maintained that while he is a village elder and has seen the Appellant in the village, he did not know him well. He further denied having gone to the Appellant’s home that night or having any knowledge regarding the Appellant's claim that he had been busy cooking githeri at the time of the offence. 9. PW3told the court that **on** 4thApril 2024 at around 3:00 a.m, he was in Kiambu when he received a call from the complainant (PW1) informing him that her shop was being broken into. He stated that he immediately called another neighbour, Moses (PW4), to go and assist her. He tried calling the complainant back, but her phone was switched off. He was later called by Joseph Waweru (PW6), who informed him that the situation had worsened, prompting him to leave Kiambu at 4:00 a.m. He arrived in Murang’a at 7:00 a.m. and found the complainant at Murang'a Hospital. Upon visiting the shop later that morning, he found a large amount of blood and noted that Safaricom and Airtel cards were missing. The witness further stated that the complainant informed him that the Appellant, Peter Gitau, was the person who had attacked her. He further testified that he knew the Appellant well as he was his former student. He subsequently led police officers to the Appellant’s home, where the arrest was affected. 10. Under cross-examination, PW3 denied the Appellant's allegation that he had sent three people to remove items from the Appellant's house. He confirmed that the robbery occurred between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. and stated that while the Appellant was found at home, no weapons were recovered from the shop. He maintained that the complainant was the one who identified the Appellant and clarified that she only mentioned being stabbed and robbed without providing a description of the Appellant’s clothing. 11. PW4, statedthat on 4th April 2024, he was sleeping at his home , when he received a call from Waweru (PW6) at approximately 3:00 a.m. informing him of a break-in at Mr. Mareli’s shop. He testified that it was raining heavily at the time. Upon arriving at the front of the shop with his wife, they found the complainant (PW1) bleeding. 12. He stated that he used his vehicle to transport PW1 and, to the hospital. During the journey, he asked the complainant what had happened, and she named the Appellant, Peter, as her attacker. After admitting her to the hospital, he returned to the shop where a group had gathered. 13. He accompanied the group to the Appellant’s home and found him cutting grass.*”* PW4 kept the Appellant busy until others arrived to effect the arrest. PW4 confirmed he arrested the Appellant and prevented the crowd from attacking him before police took him to Kiamara Police Post. 14. Under cross-examination, PW4 denied hitting the Appellant and maintained that he prevented others from beating him. He further stated that the Appellant tried to run away when he saw the group. He identified the Appellant in court as the person he arrested that day. 15. PW5,testified that on 4th April 2024 at around 3:00 a.m, complainant arrived at her home. she saw that PW1 was bleeding profusely from multiple stab wounds to her neck and hand, and her clothes were completely soaked in blood. She further testified that she provided the complainant with a change of clothes and accompanied her, along with Moses Mugo (PW4), to Murang’a Hospital. She stated that while at the hospital complainant told her that it was Gitau who had attacked her. She identified the Appellant in court as the person the complainant had named. 16. Under cross-examination, PW5 clarified that she did not personally visit the Appellant’s home that morning as she had remained at the hospital with the complainant. She denied any knowledge of a grudge existing between the complainant and the Appellant and further stated that she had never heard of the Appellant being involved in any criminal activities prior to this incident. 17. PW6, testified that on 4th April 2024 at 3:23 a.m, he received a call from the complainant. She informed him that there were thieves on her roof. He stated that he called David Mwangi, Moses Mugo, and James Gichaga to accompany him. Upon their arrival at the shop, they found the complainant coming outside bleeding from her neck and asking for help. He testified that they arranged for Moses Mugo to take the complainant to the hospital, during which time she stated that Peter Gitau was the person who had hurt her. 18. PW6 further testified that in the morning, a group of people gathered at the shopping center and decided to look for the Appellant. He stated that he knew where the Appellant lived and accompanied the group to his home. They called for a police officer from Kiamara to carry out the arrest. He stated that they found the Appellant at home cutting livestock feed in his garden. He identified the accused in court as the person who was arrested. 19. PW7**,** an officer attached to Kiamara Police Post, testified that on 4th April 2024, he was at the police post when the officer in charge, CPL Muthaa, called him from the **centre**.He stated that he proceeded to Kiamara Centre where he found members of the public had already arrested the Appellant. He testified that they then re-arrested the Appellant and escorted him to Kiamara Police Post. He identified the Appellant in court as the person he arrested on that day. 20. PW8, was CPL Bob Kelly Mutinda, an officer stationed at Kiamara Police Post. He stated that on 4th March 2024, he received a call from the **ACC Iyego** regarding an incident at Thirikwa Shopping Centre. He was informed that a person had been arrested by members of the public and that a possible mob justice was about to occur. He went to the scene with PC Hassan Maow, and upon arrival, they found the Appellant in his mother's hands as she was shielding him from the members of the public. He arrested the Appellant and, upon inquiry, was informed by the public that the accused had stabbed a lady the previous night. CPL Mutinda stated that he conducted a search of both the Appellant’s house and his mother’s house but did not recover any knife. 21. He further stated that he arrested the Appellant primarily to prevent him from being beaten by the crowd and subsequently escorted him to Kiamara Police Post. He then informed the OCS Kangema, who dispatched DCI officers to take over the case. Under cross-examination, he stated that he did not find the Appellant with any item from the shop. 22. PW9, was**,** a Clinical Officer from Murang’a Level 5 Hospital. He testified that he treated the complainant, on 4th April 2024. Upon examination, he found that she had sustained multiple cut wounds to the neck region, her left hand, and her left 3rd and 4th fingers. The wounds were bleeding profusely. He produced the out-patient treatment notes and the P3 form. 23. PW10, was CPL Bingwa Samuel, a DCI officer based in Kangema and the investigation’s officer in the case. He told the court that on 4th April 2024 at around 2:00 p.m., he was called by the OCS Kangema Police Station regarding a robbery with violence that had occurred at Thirikwa Village. He proceeded to the scene accompanied by IP Cynthia Peter and PC Cornelius Kemboi, but found no one present. They subsequently proceeded to Kiamara Police Post, where they found the Appellant, Peter Gitau Kiguru, already in custody. He visited the complainant at Murang’a Level 5 Hospital, where she provided a detailed account of the attack. He further testified that the complainant told him she was able to recognize the Appellant’s face when he used a torch to illuminate the shop padlocks,. 24. He subsequently visited the scene with a Scene of Crime officer for documentation and photography, He also coordinated an identification parade on 21st April 2024, conducted by the OCS Kangema, where the complainant positively identified the Appellant from a group of ten men by touching him. 25. He produced several exhibits, including the identification parade form (PExhibit No. 5), eleven photographs of the crime scene (P Exhibit No. 6), a certificate for the photographs (P Exhibit No. 7), the shop license (P Exhibit No. 2), and the phone receipt (P Exhibit No. 1). 26. Under cross-examination, the witness confirmed that the complainant knew the Appellant physically as they were from the same area and he had previously worked for her as a casual labourer. He admitted that while a search was conducted, the weapon used in the attack was not recovered. **Defence Case** 1. The Appellant testified as the first defence witness**.** He stated that on , 4th April 2024, he woke up at his home in Thirikwa, took tea, and at 10:00 a.m and proceeded to his farm to weed. It was his testimony that while he was at the farm, he was surrounded by more than ten people who accused him of having committed a theft during the night. 2. The Appellant further testified that his mother informed the gathered crowd that he had spent the previous night in the kitchen cooking githeri, after which he was released and remained behind her until the police arrived. He told the court that when the police eventually came and conducted a search of his house., they did not find any incriminating items. 3. He concluded his testimony by denying the offence and asserting that he was being framed due to a pre-existing grudge he had with the victim. 4. DW2, was the mother of the Appellant**.** She stated that on the evening of the alleged offence, the Appellant had returned from work at 8:00 p.m, carrying maize which had been given to him as his day’s wages. And that he was cooking the maize in the kitchen until 11:00 p.m., after which he informed her that he was going to sleep 5. She further told the court that in the morning she went to work and when she heard what was happening at home she rushed there. She shielded the Appellant from the crowd. She stated that a search was conducted at both her house and the Appellant’s house, but the officers did not find any items or weapons in her house. 6. She testified that the Appellant had previously worked for the complainant and she had never heard any allegations of him stealing from the complainant. Under cross-examination, she maintained that the Appellant was at home on the material night. **Analysis and Determination** 1. This being a first appeal, this court has the duty to review the evidence, carry out its own evaluation and arrive at its own conclusion, save that due allowance must be made for the fact that the trial court had the advantage of hearing the witnesses first-hand. (See ***:Selle and Another v Associated Motor Boat Company Limited EA 123***). 2. I have carefully reconsidered and re-evaluated the evidence tendered before the trial court as well the grounds of Appeal and the rival submissions. The following issues arise for consideration: a). *whether the Appellant’s right to a fair trial was violated* *b). whether the Appellant was positively identified as the perpetrator of the offence;* *c). whether the offence of robbery with violence was proved beyond reasonable doubt, and;* *d). whether the sentence imposed was lawful.* *Whether the Appellant’s Right to a Fair Trial was Violated* 1. The Appellant contends that the trial court failed to inform him of his right to legal representation under Article 50(2)(g) and (h) of the Constitution and that this omission rendered the proceedings a nullity. 2. Article 50(2)(g) of the Constitution guarantees every accused person the right to choose and be represented by an advocate and to be informed of that right promptly. A perusal of the record shows that prior to answering to the charge, the Appellant was informed of his right to legal representation. ( **page 2 , paragraph of the record of Appeal ).** This complaint is therefore is without merit. 3. Article 50(2)(h) provides for legal representation at State expense where substantial injustice would otherwise result. 4. However, the mere failure to provide counsel does not automatically render a trial a nullity unless it is shown that substantial injustice was occasioned to the accused person. 5. A perusal of the record again shows that the Appellant cross-examined all the prosecution witnesses at length, challenged their evidence on identification, questioned the absence of recovered exhibits, and advanced a defence which included allegations of a grudge between himself and the complainant. The record does not disclose any complexity of law or fact that the Appellant was unable to comprehend or challenge that was facing him. 6. Further the Appellant has not demonstrated how the absence of legal representation prejudiced his defence or occasioned a miscarriage of justice. 7. This ground of appeal equally fails. ### *Whether the Appellant was Positively Identified* 1. The conviction in this matter substantially rested on evidence of recognition by the complainant. The law is settled that evidence of visual identification, particularly at night, must be examined with the greatest care as mistakes can occur even when identification is based on recognition. 2. The complainant testified that the attack occurred at approximately 3.20 a.m. She stated that during the robbery the assailant illuminated the padlocks using a torch, whose light reflected onto his face, enabling her to see him clearly. She further stated that they both walked out when she finally opened the door. And there was moonlight at the time. Most importantly, she testified that she knew the Appellant before the incident as he had previously worked for her as a casual labourer and she had seen him on several occasions around the locality. She also stated that she recognized his voice. The record shows that indeed there was a lengthy exchange between the two. For instance he told the complainant to give him money **( page 6 line 19** **of the record**); he told her the money was little( **page 6 line 22**);he told her to go to bed( **line 24 page 6**); He asked her why she was looking at him; if she recognized him, and eventually he told her to go back to the house. ( **pages page 6 to 7 of the record of Appeal.** )It also emerged from the last part of cross- exam that the two actually knew each other as the Appellant seemed to suggest that the motive of the charge was because the Appellant rebuffed romantic gestures from the complainant. 3. The complainant’s testimony was further strengthened by her conduct immediately after the attack. PW2, PW4, PW5 and PW6 all testified that shortly after the incident and while still bleeding from her injuries, the complainant consistently named the Appellant as the person who had attacked and robbed her. These reports were made at the earliest opportunity before any possibility of fabrication or influence. 4. Further the testimony of the Appellant’s mother (DW2) , corroborated the complainant’s evidence to the effect that the Appellant had indeed previously worked for the complainant. 5. It was evident therefore that this was a case of identification through recognition, which has been celebrated as more reliable assuring, by the courts 6. Further an identification parade was conducted in which the complainant was able to pick out the Appellant. The Appellant has argued that the parade was flawed as proper procedures were not followed. Instructively, the Appellant at the same time submitted that the parade was worthless as the person identifying him had claimed that she knew him. 7. Am not convinced that the flaws on the parade pointed out by the Appellant were fatal to the procedure. Even if the evidential value of the identification parade were discounted, the complainant’s evidence of recognition, coupled with her immediate naming of the Appellant to the other prosecution witnesses and the circumstances referred to earlier remains cogent and reliable. 8. Am satisfied that the Appellant was positively identified. *Whether the Offence of Robbery with Violence was Proved* 1. The ingredients of the offence of robbery with violence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code were reiterated by the court of Appeal in ***Dima Denge Dima & Others v Republic [2013] KECA 480 (KLR) where the Judges held:*** ***“Section 296 (2)****are, however, three in number and they are to be read not conjunctively, but disjunctively. One element is enough to found a conviction. This was considered at length by this Court in****JOHANA NDUNGU Vs. REPUBLIC Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1995 (****unreported;)* ***Therefore, the existence of the afore-described ingredients constituting robbery are pre-supposed in the three sets of circumstances prescribed in section 296 (2) which we give below and any one of which if proved will constitute the offence under the sub-section.”*** 1. *If the offender is armed with any dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument, or* 2. *If he is in company with one or more other person or persons, or* 3. *If, at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery, he wounds beats, strikes or uses any other violence to any person.”* 4. Thus the offence is established where the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon; or is in the company of one or more persons; or wounds, beats, strikes or uses personal violence upon the victim immediately before, during or after the robbery. 5. The complainant testified that the assailant was armed with a knife. A knife is undoubtedly a dangerous weapon. She further testified that she was stabbed multiple times during the robbery. The medical evidence of PW9 confirmed that she sustained multiple cut wounds on the neck and fingers which required stitching and treatment. The evidence also established that cash amounting to Kshs. 6,900/=, a mobile phone and airtime cards were stolen from the complainant. 6. The fact that the knife was not recovered does not negate the offence. Recovery of the weapon is not a mandatory requirement where credible oral evidence establishes that a dangerous weapon was used. 7. In the present case, the prosecution proved not one but two ingredients of robbery with violence, namely that the assailant was armed with a dangerous weapon and that he wounded the complainant during the robbery. The offence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code was therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt. 8. I have also considered the defence. The Appellant stated that there existed a grudge between the complainant and himself. . Apart from the mere assertion, no evidence was tendered to establish the existence, nature or extent of such a grudge. The allegation therefore remained unsubstantiated. ### *Whether the Sentence was Lawful* 1. The Appellant was sentenced to thirty (30) years imprisonment upon conviction. Sentencing is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and an appellate court will only interfere where the sentence is illegal, based on wrong principles, or manifestly excessive. 2. The offence of robbery with violence is undoubtedly a grave offence. The complainant sustained serious injuries and could easily have lost her life. The trial court considered the circumstances of the offence and imposed a custodial sentence of thirty years imprisonment. 3. I find no indication that the trial court considered irrelevant factors or failed to consider relevant ones. The sentence imposed was lawful, proportionate and commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. There is therefore no basis upon which this Court can interfere with it. 4. On the provisions of section 333(2) of the criminal procedure code, the record show that the trial court indicated that the Appellant’s sentence was to run from the date the Appellant took plea. This ground of Appeal is therefore devoid of merit 5. Consequently, the appeal against conviction and sentence is hereby dismissed in its entirety, and the findings of the court below upheld. Dated signed and delivered at Isiolo, via Microsoft teams this 25th day of June 2026. S. Chirchir Judge. In the presence of: Roba Katelo- court Assitant The Appellant.