1. Brian Odoyo Odhiambo, the appellant herein, was convicted of the offence of attempted murder contrary to section 220 (a) of the Penal Code.
2. The particulars of the offence are that on the 26th day of March 2023, at Kanga area, in Rongo Sub-County within Migori County, he unlawfully attempted to cause the death of Raphael Owuor Ojwang by cutting him several times on the head and chopping off his right hand.
3. The appellant was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. He was aggrieved and filed this appeal against the sentence. he argued that the trial court made errors in both law and fact by imposing a severe and disproportionate sentence given the circumstances.
4. The state did not file any grounds of opposition or submissions.
5. This is a first appellate court. As expected, I have analyzed and evaluated afresh all the evidence adduced before the lower court, and I have drawn my own conclusions while bearing in mind that I neither saw nor heard any of the witnesses. I will be guided by the celebrated case of Okeno vs Republic [1972] EA 32.
6. Section 220 (a) of the Penal Code provides:
Any person who—
(a) attempts unlawfully to cause the death of another; is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life.
7. An appellate court would interfere only where there exists, to a sufficient extent, circumstances entitling it to do so. Nelson vs Republic [1970] E.A. 599 as follows:
The principles upon which an appellate court will act in exercising its jurisdiction to review sentences are fairly established. The court does not alter a sentence on the mere ground that if the members of the court had been trying the appellant, they might have passed a somewhat different sentence and it will not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by a trial Judge unless as was said in James v Rex (1950), 18 EACA 147, it is evident that the Judge has acted upon some wrong principle or overlooked some material factor! To this, we would also add a third criterion, namely, that the sentence is manifestly excessive in view of the circumstances of the case. R v Shershewsity (1912) C.CA 28 T.LR 364.
8. The complainant in this case sustained the following injuries:
a) Multiple cut wounds on the scalp;
b) Amputated upper limb; and
c) Fracture of the left elbow;
9. Although the appellant claimed the sentence was harsh, considering the injuries involved, the learned trial magistrate gave a relatively lenient sentence. Given the applicable penalty and that it is not overly severe, I find the appeal without merit. As a result, it is dismissed.
Delivered and signed at Migori, this 23rd day of February 2026
2. The particulars of the offence are that on the 26th day of March 2023, at Kanga area, in Rongo Sub-County within Migori County, he unlawfully attempted to cause the death of Raphael Owuor Ojwang by cutting him several times on the head and chopping off his right hand.
3. The appellant was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. He was aggrieved and filed this appeal against the sentence. he argued that the trial court made errors in both law and fact by imposing a severe and disproportionate sentence given the circumstances.
4. The state did not file any grounds of opposition or submissions.
5. This is a first appellate court. As expected, I have analyzed and evaluated afresh all the evidence adduced before the lower court, and I have drawn my own conclusions while bearing in mind that I neither saw nor heard any of the witnesses. I will be guided by the celebrated case of Okeno vs Republic [1972] EA 32.
6. Section 220 (a) of the Penal Code provides:
Any person who—
(a) attempts unlawfully to cause the death of another; is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life.
7. An appellate court would interfere only where there exists, to a sufficient extent, circumstances entitling it to do so. Nelson vs Republic [1970] E.A. 599 as follows:
The principles upon which an appellate court will act in exercising its jurisdiction to review sentences are fairly established. The court does not alter a sentence on the mere ground that if the members of the court had been trying the appellant, they might have passed a somewhat different sentence and it will not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by a trial Judge unless as was said in James v Rex (1950), 18 EACA 147, it is evident that the Judge has acted upon some wrong principle or overlooked some material factor! To this, we would also add a third criterion, namely, that the sentence is manifestly excessive in view of the circumstances of the case. R v Shershewsity (1912) C.CA 28 T.LR 364.
8. The complainant in this case sustained the following injuries:
a) Multiple cut wounds on the scalp;
b) Amputated upper limb; and
c) Fracture of the left elbow;
9. Although the appellant claimed the sentence was harsh, considering the injuries involved, the learned trial magistrate gave a relatively lenient sentence. Given the applicable penalty and that it is not overly severe, I find the appeal without merit. As a result, it is dismissed.
Delivered and signed at Migori, this 23rd day of February 2026