(Being an appeal from original conviction and sentence in SOA case at Mombasa CMCC (SO) no E122 OF 2021 delivered on 29/10/2024 by Hon D.Odhiambo(SRM)
1. The Appellant, Patrick Musa Kamau, was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8 (1) as read with Section 8 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act of 2006. The particulars of the offence are that on diverse dates between 25/8/2021 and 7/9/2021 at Brazil area in Likoni Sub-county within Mombasa County, the accused unlawfully and intentionally caused his penis to penetrate the anus of M.A a child aged 12 years.
2. The appellant also faced an alternative charge of committing an indecent act with a child contrary to Section 11 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act. The particulars were that on diverse dates between 25/8/2021 and 7/9/2021 at Brazil area in Likoni sub-county within Mombasa County, the accused intentionally and unlawfully touched the vagina M.A a girl aged 12 years old.
3. The appellant was convicted on the main count and sentenced to serve 20 years’ imprisonment.
4. The appellant was not satisfied with the judgement of the trial court and thus sought this appeal.
5. The appellants’ grounds of appeal are summarized as follows;
i. That the learned magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to see that the charge sheet was fatally defective.
ii. The trial court erred in law and fact by failing to see that the prosecution had withheld crucial evidence in their possession.
iii. The trial court erred in law and fact by failing to see that the evidence adduced by independent witnesses was inconsistent with that of the complainant on crucial aspects.
iv. The trial court erred in law and fact by failing to see that the prosecution case failed to meet the requisite threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
v. The trial court erred in fact by failing to see that the relevant penal law is couched in permissive terms by the word “is liable to…” and therefore not minimum mandatory in nature.
Prosecution’s case
6. PW1 M.A (minor) the complainant herein testified that she is 10 years. She stated that she knows the appellant who used to go to their home. PW1 said that on 24/8/2021 at around 11.00pm her father sent her to the shop alone and the appelant met her while she was heading to the shop. She said that the appellant told her to go to his home, which they did using a tuktuk. At his home he cooked and they ate ugali and fish.
7. After eating they were on bed. The appellant removed his clothes. He also asked her to remove her clothes. She said that “Alinimwagia vitu vyeupe hapa” (pointing at her private parts). She said that he was on top her. She went home the following day. At home she told her mom and dad what happened and they took her to the hospital.
8. PW2 Sahara Abdillahi Mohdhar stated that she knows the complainant as they used to stay in the same estate. The complainant had just started to school but the incident happened. PW2 said that it was the third time seeing the appelant. PW2 said that on 7/9/2021 she was with Zaituni who informed her that Ali’s daughter was missing (the victim) for about 9 days. At around 6pm Zaituni called her and informed her that the minor has been found. PW2 went and interrogated the minor who said that she was coming from Rasta who was her father’s friend. PW2 said that the minor told her that Rasta used to do tabia mbaya to her every evening and morning. She pointed to her private part and said that Rasta used to put “mdudu wake hapa.” PW2 said that the victim’s parents are mentally unstable.
9. They took the victim to Likoni sub county hospital. The victim took them to the appelants’s place. PW2 was with 2 neighbors, her husband, the complainant’s father and police officers.
10. PW3 Stephen Kalai stated that he works at Likoni sub-county hospital as clinical officer. He said that the victim was brought by a good Samaritan at the hospital on 7/9/2021. Pw3 interrogated the good Samaritan who informed him that the minor went missing from her home on 25/8/2021 where she was traced on 7/9/2021 and the matter was reported at Shelly Beach police station.
11. PW3 interrogated the minor who informed him that the appellant used to defile her all times, morning and evening. That at times the accused used to take her to a certain old lady and warn her against disclosing. She was asked to introduce him as the father. Pw3 said that at times in the evening the appellant would call the minor from the lady, take her into the house and after eating the appellant would defile her. At times she would be defiled anally.
12. PW3 stated that upon examination, there was marked tenderness on the labia and visible swelling. There was wide spread fresh vaginal abrasion. The hymen was swollen with old scar with healing process on the edges of hymen. There were laceration on the anus at 12 o’clock. He produced treatment notes as PEX-1, PRC form as PEX-2, P3 form as PEX-3 and consent form as PEX-5.
13. PW4 PC Chadwick Adede attached at Shelly Beach Police station produced a birth certificate as PEX-4. He said that on 10/9/2023 the father of the complainant reported that his child was missing. Later she when she came back she said that she was abused at the house of the appellant who was his neighbor.
Defence case
14. DWI Patrick Musa Kanani the appellant testified under oath that on the material day at Posta area he met the victim who told hm that she was looking for her mother who has become mentally unstable. Since he knew her he decided to help her by taking her back to her home in Likoni. He said that he took the girl to village elder.
15. He went to work and the following day the village elder told him the girl had escaped from her house and she has been looking for her. After five days he was arrested and brought to court.
16. In light of the above, the issues for determination before this court are; -
i. Whether the charge sheet was defective.
ii. Whether the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt
iii. Whether the sentence was excessive in the circumstances.
Analysis and Determination
17. The duty of this court as a first appellate court is well settled in the case of Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32 at 36 where the court held that: -
“….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 v Rep [1957] EA 336 and to the appellate court’s own decision on the Evidence. The first appellate must itself weigh conflicting evidence and draw its own conclusions. (Shentilal M. Ruwala v R [1957] E.A 570 . It is not the function of the first appellate court to merely scrutinize the Evidence to see if there was Some evidence to support lower court’s findings and conclusions, it must make its own findings and draw its own conclusions. Only then can it decide whether the magistrate’s finding 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 witnesses, See Peters v Sunday [1958] E.A 424 .”
i. Whether the charge was defective
18. On the issue of a defective charge sheet, there are two limbs to it. The first one deals with the issue as to whether the charge sheet is indeed defective, whereas the second one deals with the issue as to whether even if a charge sheet is defective, that defect is curable or not. The Court of Appeal considered the ingredients necessary in a charge sheet and stated as follows in the case of Isaac Omambia vs Republic (1995) eKLR :-
“In this regard, it is pertinent to draw attention to the following provisions of S. 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code which makes particulars of a charge an integral part of the charge: Every charge or information shall contain, and shall be sufficient if it contains a statement of the specific offence or offences with which the accused person is charged, together with such particulars as may be necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of the offence.”
19. A charge can also be defective if it is in variance with the evidence adduced in its support. Quoting with approval from Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (40th Edn), page 52 paragraph 53 , the Court of Appeal stated in YONGO V R, (1983) eKLR that: -
“ In England it has been said: An indictment is defective not only when it is bad on the face of it, but also:
(i) when it does not accord with the evidence before the committing magistrates either because of inaccuracies or deficiencies in the indictment or because the indictment charges offences not disclosed in that evidence or fails to charge an offence which is disclosed therein,
(ii) when for such reason it does not accord with the evidence given at the trial.”
20. Further guidance is found in the case of Peter Sabem Leitu vs R CRA no. 482 of 2007 (UR) the Court of Appeal held: -
“The question therefore is, did this defect prejudice the appellant as to occasion any miscarriage of justice or a violation of his fundamental right to a fair trial? We think not. The charge sheet was clearly read out to the appellant and he responded. As such he was fully aware that he faced a charge of robbery with violence. The particulars in the charge sheet made clear reference to the offence of robbery with violence as well as the date the offence is alleged to have occurred. These particulars were also read out to the appellant on the date of taking plea. The fact that PW1 was not personally robbed and did not also witness the robbery did not in any way prejudice the appellant.”
21. In the case of NJUGUNA V R, [2002] LLR NO. 3735 (CAK) the Court of Appeal in considering whether a defect in a charge sheet is fatal held: -
“We think, like the Learned Judges of the High Court did, that stating in a Charge Sheet a lesser amount than the amount which was actually stolen was no more than an irregularity in the Charge Sheet and it did not render the Charge Defective. It was an irregularity curable under the above quoted section of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Appellant did not point out to us any sort of prejudice which the irregularity could or did occasion to him .”
22. From the above foregoing, and considering the charge sheet on record I find that the same contains a statement of the specific offence or offences with which the appellant was charged with together with such particulars as may be necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of the offence charged. I hold that the charge sheet on record is in line with Section 134 of the Criminal procedure code hence this ground fails. The defilement was over a duration of time and it was both vaginal and anal and therefore the particulars disclose the offence.
ii. Whether the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt
23. Section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act, 2006 is captured in the following terms in creating the offence and punishment for defilement;
“8. Defilement
(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.”
24. Section 11 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act provides for the offence of an indecent act with a child in the following terms;
“11. Indecent act with child or adult
(1) Any person who commits an indecent act with a child is guilty of the
offence of committing an indecent act with a child and is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years.”
Penetration
25. Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act defines it as the partial or complete insertion of the genital organ of a person into the genital organs of another person. In this case the minor stated that the appellant had defiled her. The PRC form on record shows that the minor had been penetrated on diverse dates. The PRC form shows that there was marked tenderness on the labia and visible swelling. There was wide spread fresh vaginal abrasion. The hymen was swollen with old scar with healing process on the edges of hymen. There was laceration on the anus at 12 o’clock. This clearly indicate that the minor had sexual intercourse.
26. In the case of Bassita Hussein vs Uganda, supreme Court Criminal Appeal no. 35 of 1995 , the court held: -
“the act of sexual intercourse or penetration may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Usually, the sexual intercourse is proved by the victims over evidence and corroborated by medical evidence or other evidence.”
27. In the above foregoing, I find that the evidence of the victim and that of the Doctor was consistent and sufficient to prove the element of penetration thus there is no reason to disturb the finding of the trial court. I affirm that penetration was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Age of the victim
28. Proof of age is important in a sexual offense. In Kaingu Kasomo vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2010 (UR) , the Court of Appeal stated that: -
“Age of the victim of sexual assault under the Sexual Offences Act is a critical component. It forms part of the charge which must be proved the same way as penetration in the cases of rape and defilement. It is therefore essential that the same be proved by credible evidence for the sentence to be imposed will be dependent on the age of the victim.”
29. The minor testified that she is 10 years old. The treatment notes from Likoni District Hopital shows that the minor was 9 years old when he reported to the hospital. The P3 form shows that the minor was 12 years old when the offence occurred. The child health card from ShikaAdabu Dispensary shows that the minor was born on 21/8/2009. I find that the minor was aged 12 years old at the time of the incident.
Positive identification of the assailant
30. DW1 stated that he met the minor at Posta area and he went home with her and handed over the minor to the village elder. From his evidence he did not dispute that he was known to the victim thus his evidence corroborates the minors evidence that the appellant was his neighbor and they knew each other well. PW2 also stated that the accused person was a friend to the victim’s father. I find that the appellant was positively identified by the victim.
31. The upshot is that the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.
iii. Whether the sentence was excessive in the circumstances
32. The appellant was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. The minimum sentence that can be imposed upon conviction for the offence of defilement under Section 8(1) as read with Section 8 (3) is 20 years. I find that the trial court took into account all the circumstances of the case and proceeded within the required principles in arriving at its sentence hence I do not find reasons to interfere with the sentence.
33. The appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
34. It is so ordered.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 31 st DAY OF MARCH 2026.
WENDY KAGENDO
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE
THE APPELLANT in person
MR NGIRI FOR THE STATE
MAUREEN COURT ASSISTANT
1. The Appellant, Patrick Musa Kamau, was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8 (1) as read with Section 8 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act of 2006. The particulars of the offence are that on diverse dates between 25/8/2021 and 7/9/2021 at Brazil area in Likoni Sub-county within Mombasa County, the accused unlawfully and intentionally caused his penis to penetrate the anus of M.A a child aged 12 years.
2. The appellant also faced an alternative charge of committing an indecent act with a child contrary to Section 11 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act. The particulars were that on diverse dates between 25/8/2021 and 7/9/2021 at Brazil area in Likoni sub-county within Mombasa County, the accused intentionally and unlawfully touched the vagina M.A a girl aged 12 years old.
3. The appellant was convicted on the main count and sentenced to serve 20 years’ imprisonment.
4. The appellant was not satisfied with the judgement of the trial court and thus sought this appeal.
5. The appellants’ grounds of appeal are summarized as follows;
i. That the learned magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to see that the charge sheet was fatally defective.
ii. The trial court erred in law and fact by failing to see that the prosecution had withheld crucial evidence in their possession.
iii. The trial court erred in law and fact by failing to see that the evidence adduced by independent witnesses was inconsistent with that of the complainant on crucial aspects.
iv. The trial court erred in law and fact by failing to see that the prosecution case failed to meet the requisite threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
v. The trial court erred in fact by failing to see that the relevant penal law is couched in permissive terms by the word “is liable to…” and therefore not minimum mandatory in nature.
Prosecution’s case
6. PW1 M.A (minor) the complainant herein testified that she is 10 years. She stated that she knows the appellant who used to go to their home. PW1 said that on 24/8/2021 at around 11.00pm her father sent her to the shop alone and the appelant met her while she was heading to the shop. She said that the appellant told her to go to his home, which they did using a tuktuk. At his home he cooked and they ate ugali and fish.
7. After eating they were on bed. The appellant removed his clothes. He also asked her to remove her clothes. She said that “Alinimwagia vitu vyeupe hapa” (pointing at her private parts). She said that he was on top her. She went home the following day. At home she told her mom and dad what happened and they took her to the hospital.
8. PW2 Sahara Abdillahi Mohdhar stated that she knows the complainant as they used to stay in the same estate. The complainant had just started to school but the incident happened. PW2 said that it was the third time seeing the appelant. PW2 said that on 7/9/2021 she was with Zaituni who informed her that Ali’s daughter was missing (the victim) for about 9 days. At around 6pm Zaituni called her and informed her that the minor has been found. PW2 went and interrogated the minor who said that she was coming from Rasta who was her father’s friend. PW2 said that the minor told her that Rasta used to do tabia mbaya to her every evening and morning. She pointed to her private part and said that Rasta used to put “mdudu wake hapa.” PW2 said that the victim’s parents are mentally unstable.
9. They took the victim to Likoni sub county hospital. The victim took them to the appelants’s place. PW2 was with 2 neighbors, her husband, the complainant’s father and police officers.
10. PW3 Stephen Kalai stated that he works at Likoni sub-county hospital as clinical officer. He said that the victim was brought by a good Samaritan at the hospital on 7/9/2021. Pw3 interrogated the good Samaritan who informed him that the minor went missing from her home on 25/8/2021 where she was traced on 7/9/2021 and the matter was reported at Shelly Beach police station.
11. PW3 interrogated the minor who informed him that the appellant used to defile her all times, morning and evening. That at times the accused used to take her to a certain old lady and warn her against disclosing. She was asked to introduce him as the father. Pw3 said that at times in the evening the appellant would call the minor from the lady, take her into the house and after eating the appellant would defile her. At times she would be defiled anally.
12. PW3 stated that upon examination, there was marked tenderness on the labia and visible swelling. There was wide spread fresh vaginal abrasion. The hymen was swollen with old scar with healing process on the edges of hymen. There were laceration on the anus at 12 o’clock. He produced treatment notes as PEX-1, PRC form as PEX-2, P3 form as PEX-3 and consent form as PEX-5.
13. PW4 PC Chadwick Adede attached at Shelly Beach Police station produced a birth certificate as PEX-4. He said that on 10/9/2023 the father of the complainant reported that his child was missing. Later she when she came back she said that she was abused at the house of the appellant who was his neighbor.
Defence case
14. DWI Patrick Musa Kanani the appellant testified under oath that on the material day at Posta area he met the victim who told hm that she was looking for her mother who has become mentally unstable. Since he knew her he decided to help her by taking her back to her home in Likoni. He said that he took the girl to village elder.
15. He went to work and the following day the village elder told him the girl had escaped from her house and she has been looking for her. After five days he was arrested and brought to court.
16. In light of the above, the issues for determination before this court are; -
i. Whether the charge sheet was defective.
ii. Whether the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt
iii. Whether the sentence was excessive in the circumstances.
Analysis and Determination
17. The duty of this court as a first appellate court is well settled in the case of Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32 at 36 where the court held that: -
“….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 v Rep [1957] EA 336 and to the appellate court’s own decision on the Evidence. The first appellate must itself weigh conflicting evidence and draw its own conclusions. (Shentilal M. Ruwala v R [1957] E.A 570 . It is not the function of the first appellate court to merely scrutinize the Evidence to see if there was Some evidence to support lower court’s findings and conclusions, it must make its own findings and draw its own conclusions. Only then can it decide whether the magistrate’s finding 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 witnesses, See Peters v Sunday [1958] E.A 424 .”
i. Whether the charge was defective
18. On the issue of a defective charge sheet, there are two limbs to it. The first one deals with the issue as to whether the charge sheet is indeed defective, whereas the second one deals with the issue as to whether even if a charge sheet is defective, that defect is curable or not. The Court of Appeal considered the ingredients necessary in a charge sheet and stated as follows in the case of Isaac Omambia vs Republic (1995) eKLR :-
“In this regard, it is pertinent to draw attention to the following provisions of S. 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code which makes particulars of a charge an integral part of the charge: Every charge or information shall contain, and shall be sufficient if it contains a statement of the specific offence or offences with which the accused person is charged, together with such particulars as may be necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of the offence.”
19. A charge can also be defective if it is in variance with the evidence adduced in its support. Quoting with approval from Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (40th Edn), page 52 paragraph 53 , the Court of Appeal stated in YONGO V R, (1983) eKLR that: -
“ In England it has been said: An indictment is defective not only when it is bad on the face of it, but also:
(i) when it does not accord with the evidence before the committing magistrates either because of inaccuracies or deficiencies in the indictment or because the indictment charges offences not disclosed in that evidence or fails to charge an offence which is disclosed therein,
(ii) when for such reason it does not accord with the evidence given at the trial.”
20. Further guidance is found in the case of Peter Sabem Leitu vs R CRA no. 482 of 2007 (UR) the Court of Appeal held: -
“The question therefore is, did this defect prejudice the appellant as to occasion any miscarriage of justice or a violation of his fundamental right to a fair trial? We think not. The charge sheet was clearly read out to the appellant and he responded. As such he was fully aware that he faced a charge of robbery with violence. The particulars in the charge sheet made clear reference to the offence of robbery with violence as well as the date the offence is alleged to have occurred. These particulars were also read out to the appellant on the date of taking plea. The fact that PW1 was not personally robbed and did not also witness the robbery did not in any way prejudice the appellant.”
21. In the case of NJUGUNA V R, [2002] LLR NO. 3735 (CAK) the Court of Appeal in considering whether a defect in a charge sheet is fatal held: -
“We think, like the Learned Judges of the High Court did, that stating in a Charge Sheet a lesser amount than the amount which was actually stolen was no more than an irregularity in the Charge Sheet and it did not render the Charge Defective. It was an irregularity curable under the above quoted section of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Appellant did not point out to us any sort of prejudice which the irregularity could or did occasion to him .”
22. From the above foregoing, and considering the charge sheet on record I find that the same contains a statement of the specific offence or offences with which the appellant was charged with together with such particulars as may be necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of the offence charged. I hold that the charge sheet on record is in line with Section 134 of the Criminal procedure code hence this ground fails. The defilement was over a duration of time and it was both vaginal and anal and therefore the particulars disclose the offence.
ii. Whether the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt
23. Section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act, 2006 is captured in the following terms in creating the offence and punishment for defilement;
“8. Defilement
(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.”
24. Section 11 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act provides for the offence of an indecent act with a child in the following terms;
“11. Indecent act with child or adult
(1) Any person who commits an indecent act with a child is guilty of the
offence of committing an indecent act with a child and is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years.”
Penetration
25. Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act defines it as the partial or complete insertion of the genital organ of a person into the genital organs of another person. In this case the minor stated that the appellant had defiled her. The PRC form on record shows that the minor had been penetrated on diverse dates. The PRC form shows that there was marked tenderness on the labia and visible swelling. There was wide spread fresh vaginal abrasion. The hymen was swollen with old scar with healing process on the edges of hymen. There was laceration on the anus at 12 o’clock. This clearly indicate that the minor had sexual intercourse.
26. In the case of Bassita Hussein vs Uganda, supreme Court Criminal Appeal no. 35 of 1995 , the court held: -
“the act of sexual intercourse or penetration may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Usually, the sexual intercourse is proved by the victims over evidence and corroborated by medical evidence or other evidence.”
27. In the above foregoing, I find that the evidence of the victim and that of the Doctor was consistent and sufficient to prove the element of penetration thus there is no reason to disturb the finding of the trial court. I affirm that penetration was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Age of the victim
28. Proof of age is important in a sexual offense. In Kaingu Kasomo vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2010 (UR) , the Court of Appeal stated that: -
“Age of the victim of sexual assault under the Sexual Offences Act is a critical component. It forms part of the charge which must be proved the same way as penetration in the cases of rape and defilement. It is therefore essential that the same be proved by credible evidence for the sentence to be imposed will be dependent on the age of the victim.”
29. The minor testified that she is 10 years old. The treatment notes from Likoni District Hopital shows that the minor was 9 years old when he reported to the hospital. The P3 form shows that the minor was 12 years old when the offence occurred. The child health card from ShikaAdabu Dispensary shows that the minor was born on 21/8/2009. I find that the minor was aged 12 years old at the time of the incident.
Positive identification of the assailant
30. DW1 stated that he met the minor at Posta area and he went home with her and handed over the minor to the village elder. From his evidence he did not dispute that he was known to the victim thus his evidence corroborates the minors evidence that the appellant was his neighbor and they knew each other well. PW2 also stated that the accused person was a friend to the victim’s father. I find that the appellant was positively identified by the victim.
31. The upshot is that the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.
iii. Whether the sentence was excessive in the circumstances
32. The appellant was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. The minimum sentence that can be imposed upon conviction for the offence of defilement under Section 8(1) as read with Section 8 (3) is 20 years. I find that the trial court took into account all the circumstances of the case and proceeded within the required principles in arriving at its sentence hence I do not find reasons to interfere with the sentence.
33. The appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
34. It is so ordered.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 31 st DAY OF MARCH 2026.
WENDY KAGENDO
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE
THE APPELLANT in person
MR NGIRI FOR THE STATE
MAUREEN COURT ASSISTANT