https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10955

Atwambi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E082 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 10955 (KLR) (Crim) (16 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10955 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Criminal Criminal Appeal E082 of 2022 MW Muigai, J July 16, 2026 Between Robert Mutie Atwambi Appellant and Republic Respondent (Being an Appeal against the Judgment of Hon. N. Nanzushi (PM) at the Chief Magistrate’s Court Milimani Cr. Case No. 410 of 2020 delivered on 16{{^th}} December 2021) Judgment Memorandum Of Appeal 1.On 6th June 2022, Robert Mutie Atwambi the Appellant filed a Memorandum of Appeal against conviction and sentence delivered by Hon. M. Nanzushi (PM) and on his submissions he filed amended grounds as follows:- AMended Grounds Of Appeal 2.That, the Hon. Magistrate erred in matters of law and fact in that there was no prima facie case under section 296(2) of the Penal Code to found a conviction, a breach of Articles 47(1), 50, 157(11), and 159(2)(e) of the constitution of Kenya 2010, s.107 Evidence Act and sections 216 and 329 of the CPC. 3.That, the Hon. Magistrate grossly erred matters of law and fact as proper identification was not done, contrary to criminal procedure and the Kenya police force standing orders. 4.That, the Hon. Magistrate erred in matters of law and fact as the Appellant 's cogent defence and mitigation were not given due weight and consideration for a fair trial under Articles 47 and 50 of the constitution. 5.That, the Hon. Magistrate erred in matters of law and fact as the sentence awarded was harsh, unfair, unjustified, excessive, disproportionate and unconstitutional. 6.That, the Hon. Magistrate erred in matters of law and fact as current jurisprudence has shown the courts exercising discretion in awarding sentences in line with circumstances presenting. 7.That, the Hon. Magistrate erred in matters of law and fact as no harm was inflicted on the complainant, making the case greatly mitigated. 8.That, the Hon. Magistrate erred in matters of law and fact as the items allegedly stolen/taken were low-value items, making the case greatly mitigated. 9.That, the Appellant was just a young man of 26 (twenty-six) years of age at the time of the alleged offence, making the case greatly mitigated. THAT, the Appellant was said to be a first offender, making the case greatly mitigated. THAT, the Appellant was in remand custody for one year and eight months. Trial Court Proceedings 10.The accused is charged with robbery with violence contrary to Section 295 as read with Section 296(2)of the Penal Code . Particulars being that on the 23rd March 2020 at about 3.00pm at Dam Estate within Nairobi County jointly with others not while armed with a dangerous weapon namely a sword robbed Mercy Chepngetich Kshs. 200/- and a mobile phone Samsung Hot 7 valued at 12,800/= and at the said time of robbery, threatened to use actual violence on the said Mercy Chengetich. 11.In Count II the accused is charged with handling suspected stolen property contrary to Section 323 of the Penal Code. Particulars being that on 2nd April 2020 at Highrise Estate in Langata Sub County within Nairobi County having been detained by Cpl Mohamed Ali as a result of exercising his powers as conferred under S.26 CPC, had in his possession 3 mobile phones, techno and 2 Samsung reasonably suspected to be stolen or unlawfully obtained. The accused pleaded not guilty matter was set for trial. 12.PW1 Mercy Chepngetich a student at Tangaza Unity college told the Court that on 23rd March 2020 at 3.00 pm while she was crossing from Kambi Moto to Kibera she met Robert accused person on the road. He greeted her but she did not respond because she did not know him. She went ahead and she met two boys who stopped her and asked for 20 shillings for lunch. As she prepared to give them, they held her and the accused came back and took her phone from her pocket. The phone was infix Hot 7 valued at 12,800/=. She produced Receipt of Phone Ksh 12,800/-. The other boys one took 200/=. The accused told her not to report and they would monitor her and she would see fire. At the time of the robbery the accused had a knife which she identified in Court. 13.She reported the matter to police on 2/4/20 and recorded a statement. She saw him well and she could remember his face as she stayed with him for about 6 minutes. The robbery took place at 1.00pm. On 2nd of April while she was fetching water she saw the accused whom she recognised, she asked him for her phone but he told her to leave that story.He reported to mechanics who followed the accused and got him. 14.On cross examination she said the accused threatened to eliminate her and monitor her movements. The accused was arrested as he passed by their plot. She thought that was the monitoring that the accused meant. He was found with the knife he had shown her. That upon her calling the mechanics he started running and caught him. She said that the police came about 20 minutes after his arrest. She produced OB No. 49. 15.. PW2 No. 52876 Cpl Mohamed Chiriku based at Langata police station stated that on 2/4/2019 he was on duty with his colleagues when he was called by IP Evelyn Wangari and she informed him there was one person being beaten by mob. They went to the scene and found the accused with 3 phones and a dagger. They rescued him and took him to the police station in company of the complainant. On interrogation he could not explain the source of the 3 phones. He produced the Exhts P Ex1 3(a-c) – phones and P Exh 2 Dagger 16.On cross examination he said he was informed by IP Evelyneat around 4.30 and they found the accused with 3 phones and a dagger which had been confiscated.He did not take any photos of the accused with the items. That upon interrogation he admitted the items were his. They did an inventory the same day but the accused refused to sign. They filed the OB entry. He said that he arrested the accused at Langata shopping centre he couldn't remember exactly where, if it was a garage. 17.PW3 Vitalis OKoth told the court that he is a mechanic at a garage in Langata and he lives in Kibera. He was on duty when a girl came crying for help, that she had seen the people who robbed her. They gave chase and caught the accused who dropped the knife and he picked it. They then called the police to pick him. The complainant said she had been robbed off a phone. On police check he was found with 3 phones which are in court, 2 samsung and 1 techno phones. 18.On cross examination he said he didn't witness the robbery and he could not remember the date they arrested him. 19.PW4 Kenney Ajoo an electrician at a garage told the Court that the said date he was on duty with his colleagues, a lady came and greeted them and told themthat she needed help as she had seen the people who had robbed her. She pointed at 2 people and they gave chase and they caught him. He had a knife. They asked him if he knew the girl and that they had taken her phone. He gave him his phone to call the person who had the phone to bring it. He called a number talked to someone who then switched off the phone. They conducted a search and got him with 3 phones. They called Police, he said that she did not know him before the incident.On cross examination he said he gave him a number to call but he did not save the number. He called the Police and held the accused waiting for the Police. He said that it was the accused who should present the number he called since he was the accused. He admitted having stolen the girls phone. earlier. He did not take photos of the items taken from the accused. 20.PW5, NO. 68975 CPL FRANCIS NDIRANGU, attached to Langata Police Station stated that on 2/4/2020, while in the office the OCS told him of a suspect who had been arrested for offence of stealing a phone. He managed to get the complainant Mercy who recorded a statement and said that she was robbed off her phone infinix on 23/3/2020 by 3 suspect who touched her withconsequences. She took him to the scene and he recorded statement of other witnesses. He also took record of the items a sword and 3 phones. He did an inventory which was duly signed after that he interrogated the suspect who was charged with the offence. 21.On cross examination he stated that not all robbery cases have parade. The victim identified the accused and he admitted to having sold the phone. 22.On 2nd November 2021 the Accused told the court that he could not recall what on 23rd March 2020 but he recalled on 2nd April 2020 at 2.30pm he was at home. He went to the mosque for prayers which is opposite Langata Boys Highs School. When he got to the gate of Freedom Heights Apartment he heard people shouting "stop". He was arrested and taken to the garage. When he asked what he had done they did not respond. The police then arrested him and he did not know why he was arrested. Appellant’s Written Submissions 23.PW1, the complainant, stated that she was accosted by a group of boys who demanded 20 bob (twenty Kenya shillings) to buy lunch but that before she could give them, they started roughing her up and took her phone from her back pocket, page 13. That the group also took Ksh 200/- (two hundred) from her, page 13. 24.PWI further stated that she was accosted for a total of about 6 (six) minutes, page 14 line 3. The Appellant submits that it becomes very difficult to identify suspects in such a difficult and perilous situation and short period of time and the Appellant submited so. This was seen in the UK Privy council in Shand v The Queen UKPC (1995), a Jamaican criminal appeal case that focused on misdirection in identification evidence. The Privy Council quashed Karl Shand's conviction because the trial judge failed to properly warn the jury about the dangers of relying on visual identification, following the principles established in R v Turnbull (1977). The court reiterated that identification cases are notoriously risky because honest witnesses can still be mistaken. It serves as a reminder that judicial caution is essential in cases hinging on eyewitness testimony. 25.The question of identification is a major issue in this case as and it is contested in this appeal; especially so because there was no identification parade conducted by the police as is required under such circumstances and further provided for under the Criminal Procedure Code and police standing orders. 26.PW4, an electrician at a garage, stated in cross-examination that he did not witness the robbery at all, pg 30 line 1. This witness is good proof that the prosecution case was weak, shaky, insufficient and was unlikely to found a conviction. 27.PW5, the investigating officer, was categorical as he stated that his OCS (Officer commanding station) had informed him that there was a suspect who had been arrested for the offence of stealing a phone, pg 30 lines 13,14. It later emerged that a charge of robbery with violence was preferred in place of the charge of stealing. The Appellant submits that the prosecution preferred a wrong charge as there is insufficient evidence to convict on the same. What Do The Guidelines Require? 28.(i)The Magistrate has to examine closely the circumstances in which each identification is done and point out weaknesses. In this case, the Magistrate did not examine closely the circumstances in which the Appellant was identified to point out the weaknesses, the short duration of the alleged ordeal and no identification parade and weakness of dock identification among other anomalies.In R v Popat (No. 2) (2000) 1Cr App R 387, the UK court of appeal allowed the appeal due to weak identification evidence.(ii)The guidelines provide for a safeguard where if the prosecution case relies upon contested identification evidence of poor quality and there is no other evidence to support the identification, then the duty of the Magistrate is to order an acquittal. This was justified in the case of Daley v R (1994) UKHL. The Hon. Magistrate was thus rightly and justified to order an acquittal in this instance. 29.Appellant ’s defence not considered 30.Appellant 's mitigation was also not considered 31.This case cannot be compared for example to the case in John Gaitho Chege & Another V Rep Hccra No. 92 Of 2023 At Kibera (Cr Case No. 4220/2015 At Kibera Law Courts), where the Appellant s opted not to continue with their appeals at the High Court apparently due to the gravity of the circumstances of their case for, they had been convicted of Robbery with violence and sentenced to only twenty years cach; where a young man who had obtained an A minus at Form 4 and who was to join university was killed and another seriously injured with "panga" cuts. 32.The Appellant prays for the Court to evaluate the facts, law and evidence afresh in order for the Appellant to find justice. The items allegedly stolen can safely be categorized as low value items, which is not aggravating as in cases that involve millions and where victims are killed or maimed. He therefore prays for this Hon. Court's kind consideration of this matter and to kindly order the Appellant 's acquittal. 33.The Appellant submits that the sentence is harsh and disproportionate under the circumstances. His ultimate prayer is for the conviction to be quashed and sentence to be set aside. Modern Jurisprudence On Sentencing 34.The appellant cited the following cases:-1.Iftin Addirazak Ahmed vs Republic (KLR), HCCRA NO. E154/2023 at Milimani2.Abdulrahman Rashid Musa vs Republic, HCCRA NO. E105/2023 at Mombasa,3.Peter Mwangi Wanjiku vs Rep in Cr appeal No. 21 of 2019 at Nairobi,4.Kimani Ndung'u v Rep (1979) 1 KLR,.5.R v Summers (1947) All ER 372,6.Charles Matu Mburu vs Rep in Cr appeal No. 34 of 2014 at Nyeri,7.Hamisi Bakari & Another vs Rep (1987) eKLR,8.Benjamin Kahindi Changawa & Another vs Rep, Cr Appeal No. 99 OF 2019,9.Francis Karioko Muruatetu and Another vs Rep (2016) eKLR .REspondent's Grounds Of Opposition 35.The Respondent herein objects and opposes the Appellant 's Petition of Appeal on inter alia the following grounds; -1.That the Appeal lacks merit, is misconceived and unsubstantiated.(2)The Appeal is an abuse of the court process since the Appellant was properly convicted and sentenced by the trial court.(3)That this Appeal lacks merit and the same should be dismissed in its entirety. Respondent's Written Submissions Introduction 36.The Appellant was charged before the trial court with the offense of Robbery with Violence contrary to Section 295 as read with Section 296(2) of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that on 23rd March 2020 at around 3.00pm at Dam Estate in Langata Sub-County in Nairobi County, jointly with others not before court while armed with a dangerous weapon namely, sword, robbed victim one Mercy Chepngetich of Kshs.200/= and a Samsung HOT 7 mobile phone valued at Kshs.12,800/= and at the time of the such robbery, threatened to use actual violence against her. Issues For Determination 37.The sole issue for determination is whether the prosecution proved the offence of robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt.The ingredients of Robbery with Violence were authoritatively set out in Johana Ndungu-Vs-Republic CRA 116/1995 where the Court of Appeal held that the offence is established if any one of the following circumstances is proved;-1.The offender was armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument; or(2)The offender was in the company of one or more other persons; or(3)Immediately before, during or immediately after the time of robbery, the offender wounded, beats, struck or used or threatened to use violence against any person. 38.Proof of any one of these elements suffices to sustain a conviction under section 295 as read with section 296(2) of the Penal Code. Whether The Ingredients Were Proven 39.(a)The Complainant's uncontroverted testimony established that she was robbed of cash and a mobile phone. Ownership was proven through production of a purchase receipt.(b)The Appellant was armed with a dangerous weapon, namely, a sword, during the robbery. The weapon was produced in court and positively identified by the complainant.(c)The Appellant acted in the company of others. This evidence was not shaken during cross-examination.(d)The threat of violence was proven in that the Appellant threatened the Complainant with harm should she report the matter.(e)The Complainant positively identified the Appellant since the robbery occurred during the day providing favorable conditions for identification. Further, there was corroboration from independent witnesses(mechanics) who arrested the Appellant while still armed with the sword used in the robbery.(f)The Appellant 's defence amounted to a mere denial and claimed lack of recollection. It did not rebut the strong prosecution evidence linking him to the offence. Conclusion. 40.The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that;- The Appellant stole from the Complainant. He was armed with a dangerous weapon. He acted in the company of others He threatened violence during the robbery. Analysis & Determination 41.The Court considered the Trial Court proceedings culminating with the judgment; the Appellant’s Petition and written submissions and Respondent’s written submissions.This Court is called upon to reevaluate the evidence on record and consider the legal issues raised by Appellant with regard to conduct and finding of the Trial and the judgment. 42.. Okeno vs. Republic [1972] EA 32 as follows:-“An Appellant on a first appeal is entitled to expect the evidence as a whole to be submitted to a fresh and exhaustive examination (Pandya vs. Republic (1957) EA. (336) and the appellate court’s own decision on the evidence. The first appellate court must itself weigh conflicting evidence and draw its own conclusion. (Shantilal M. Ruwala Vs. R. (1957) EA. 570). It is not the function of a first appellate court merely to scrutinize the evidence to see if there was some evidence to support the lower court’s finding and conclusion; it must make its own findings and draw its own conclusions. Only then can it decide whether the magistrate’s findings should be supported. In doing so, it should make allowance for the fact that the trial court has had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses.” 43.In criminal case the burden of proof solely rests with the Prosecution as stated In the celebrated case of H.L(E)Woolmington vs. DPP [1935] A.C 462 pp. 481. 44.The standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Miller vs. Ministry of Pensions, [1947] 2 ALL ER 372 45.The Evidence Act succinctly provides Section 107;“the burden of proof is on prosecution. Section 111 of the Act the burden of proof at times shifts only when the Accused /Defense has the burden of proving any fact especially within the knowledge of such person is upon him”. 46.. The Appellant challenged the trial on the followingcondensed grounds as per the Petition; that the Prosecution did not make out a prima facie case to found a conviction; there was no proper identification and the Appellant’s defense and mitigation was not considered. The sentence was harsh unfair unjustified excessive disproportionate and unconstitutional. 47.The Prosecution presented evidence PW1 on 23/3/2020 at 3 pm in Kibera met Robert (Accused person) on the road he greeted her and she did not respond and ahead she met 2 boys who asked to give them money for lunch.She was going to give them ,they held her and Robert came and took her phone from her pocket infix7 she bought in Bomet and produced the phone’s purchase receipt as Exh 1 the phone was worth Ksh 12,800/- The boys took from her Ksh 200/- Robert threatened her not to report and they left. 48.The Accused had a knife when he was arrested which was produced in Court as Exh 2.PW1 reported the incident to the Police on 2/4/2020. She saw Accused person’s face well and he was with him and talked to her for about 6 minutes. On 2/4/2020 as she fetched water, she saw the Accused person and asked for her phone, he told her to leave. She called for help from the mechanics who followed him and got him with a knife and he said he sold her phone to his cousin. 49.PW3 & PW4 mechanic and electrician respectively on 2/4/2020 were asked by PW1 to assist her to catch the Accused person who snatched her phone. They followed him and arrested him. The Accused person had 3 phones and a sword/dagger.The Accused said the Complainant’s phone he sold to a cousin. 50.PW2 Police Officer from Langata Police Station in the company of other Officers and driver was informed of suspect who was beaten by the public and he rearrested him , he had 3 phones and dagger/sword & PW5 Police Investigating Officer at the station recorded statement from PW1 and took over the 3 phones and dagger drew an Inventory and interrogated the Accused person. He produced Inventory as Exh- 4. 51.The totality of the Prosecution case is that they established a prima facie case as defined in the case of Ramanlal Trambalal Bhatt Vs. R 1957. 52.The Complainant positively identified the Accused person on 23/2/2020 who greeted her and passed and came back and took her phone from her pocket. It was in broad daylight and they were in close contact talked he greeted her and passed on and in close proximity when she was held by 2 boys, the Accused person came back and he took her phone from her pocket. 53.On 2/4/2020; the Complainant identified the Accused person called for help and the members of the public came to her aid and upon arrest he was found with 3 phones and a dagger, on interrogation by Police Officers he said he sold her phone to a cousin. They all went to the Police Station where PW1 made a report and recorded her statement. 54.Republic -Vs- Wachira (1975) EA 262 Trevelyan and Hancox JJ. also held as follows on prima facie case;“It has been settled for many years that the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence at close of prosecution case, so as to require an accused to make his defence thereto, is a matter of law. A court is only entitled to acquit at that stage if there no evidence of a material ingredient of the offence or if the prosecution has been so discredited and the evidence of their witnesses so incredible and untrustworthy that no reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself, could safely convict…. 55.The evidence must raise a prima facie as defined in the case of Ramanlal Trambaklal Bhatt v. R [1957] E.A 332 at 334 and 335,“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one “which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.” 56.On Identification of Accused person by Complainant; as submitted by Appellant that he was not properly identified in terms of standards set in;R. vs. Turnbull & Others [1973] 3 All ER 549 it was held;“...The Judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification by each witness came to be made. How long did the witness have with the accused under observation? At what distance: In what light: Was the observation impeded in any way? Had the witness ever seen the accused before? How often? If only occasionally, had he any special reason for remembering the accused? How long elapsed between the original observation and the subsequent identification to the police? Was thereany material discrepancy between the description of the accused given to the police by the witness when first seen by them and his actual appearance?” 57.The Accused person/Appellant was properly identified as the complainant talked with and the Appellant was in close proximity while executing the robbery and threatened violence and was in the company of 2 boys who held PW1 and the circumstances disclosed the offence of robbery with violence as provided hereunder;In Oluoch –Vs – Republic [1985] KLR“Robbery with violence is committed in any of the following circumstances:a)The offender is armed with any dangerous and offensive weapon or instrument; orb)The offender is in company with one or more person or persons; orc)At or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery the offender wounds, beats, strikes or uses other personal violence to any person ………” 58.With regard to the number of witnesses that provide direct evidence on commission of the offence it is upon the Prosecution to determine how many witnesses to call as long they establish a prima facie case.Section 143 of the Evidence Act provides;‘No particular number of witnesses shall, in the absence of any provision of law to the contrary, be required for the proof of any fact’.In Samuel Kagiri Njuguna v Republic [2016] eKLR 59.All that the prosecution is required to do is to call such a number of witnesses as it thinks is sufficient to prove its case. The Complainant met the Accused person twice and both instances identified him positively. There was no requirement of Identification Parade as complainant identified the Accused and caused his arrest by public and reported to the Police Station. 60.The Appellant gave sworn statement that on that day 23/2/2020 he was arrested and taken to the Police Station. He stated he was at home and he went to the mosque opposite Langata Bufti and he was arrested and he asked why and he did not know why later he was charged with the offence before Court. 61.This defense did not cast doubt on the Prosecution case, direct evidence by PW1 that the Accused person was the one who stole her phone and removed it from her pocket. PW1 did not just pick on him, she could have blamed the theft on 2 boys who held her and asked her money for lunch and took her Ksh 200/-.This was in broad light close contact and proximity for 6 minutes and not a question of mistaken identity. 62.The Accused person subjected PW1 to cross examination ad PW1 remained consistent that it is the Appellant who accosted her and stole her phone and threatened her not to report. It is PW1 who saw him later and asked PW3& PW4 to help catch him and upon being caught was found with 3 phones and the dagger she saw the last time he accosted her. Sentencing 63.That the sentence meted out by the Trial Magistrate is manifestly excessive, harsh or punitive. The Trial Court failed to consider mitigation and granted the sentence of death penalty and later it was commuted to life imprisonment. 64.Sentencing is part of judicial process and hearing and determination of the matter by the Trial Court. Sentencing is discretion of the Trial Court that will look at the facts and circumstances of the offence in entirety so as to arrive at appropriate sentence. 65.The Prosecution/ODPP opposed reduction of sentence and the sentence preferred against the Appellant was not manifestly excessive, harsh, and severe in light of the nature of the charges and Prosecution’s overwhelming evidence. The conviction was/is safe, lawful and supported by evidence. The Appeal should be dismissed and sentence upheld. The ODPP referred the Court to Court of Appeal decision Johana Ndungu vs Republic 1996 eKLR where the case was referred to Prerogative of Mercy Committee. 66.In the case of Shadrack Kipchoge Kogo v Republic Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2003(Eldoret), the Court of Appeal stated as follows:“Sentence is essentially an exercise of the trial court and for this court to interfere, it must be shown that in passing the sentence, the court took into account an irrelevant fact or that a wrong principle was applied or short of those the sentence was so harsh and excessive that an error in principle must be inferred” 67.This Court recognizes that the Court of Appeal & Supreme Court are binding precedent setting Courts to the High Court and Magistrates’ Courts respectively. After the landmark case of Muruatetu 1- Francis Karioko Muruatetu vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus Curie) Petition 15 &16 of 2015 (consolidated)[2017] KESC 2 KLR that sentencing was part of Trial Courts proceedings to consider appropriate sentence to specific circumstances even where mandatory sentence [in this case death penalty] was prescribed. Although; Muruatetu - 2 [2022] Francis Karioko Muruatetu vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus Curie) Petition 15 & 16 of 2015 (consolidated)[2021] KESC 31 KLR clarified that the reasoning of Muruatetu 1 applied only to murder cases; a number of cases were processed through the reasoning of Muruatetu 1 including some in the list of cases cited by Appellant in written submissions. 68.The Appellant relied on Kibera High Court cases John Gaitho Chege & Anor vs Republic HCCRA No 92 of 2023. This case is referred to in Amai v Republic (Criminal Appeal 19 of 2021) [2025] KEHC 5369 (KLR) (30 April 2025) but full citation not provided nor disclosed in eKLR. The Appellant pleaded that at the time he was 26 years old, confirmed to be 1st offender and there was no harm visited on the Complainant and the items stolen were low-value items a phone of 12,800/- and Ksh 200/- stolen by the 2 boys who asked for Lunch money. The Trial Court shows he mitigated that he had a family and Trial Court granted the mandatory sentence of death penalty and later was commuted to life imprisonment.Disposition1.The Appeal on conviction is not upheld or granted.2.The Trial Court judgment is upheld on conviction3.The Appeal is dismissed on conviction4.On sentence in line with the jurisprudence in Muruatetu 1 and successive Court of Appeal cases where life imprisonment has been reduced to definite term taking into account mitigation of Appellant he is sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.5.Computation of sentence shall commence and include Pre-trial period as provided by Section 333(2) CPC. He was arrested on 2/4/2020 and convicted 16/12/2021- 20 months or 1 year 8 months Pretrial Period. JUDGMENT DELIVERED DATED SIGNED IN OPEN COURT CRIMINAL DIVISION HIGH COURT ON 16/7/2026M.W. MUIGAIJUDGE