ELIAS APUDHO ODHOWO & 3 OTHERS vs REPUBLIC [1983] KECA 100 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed four men's manslaughter appeals, ruling that age, health or family responsibilities cannot excuse sentences for mob killings of child suspects.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the sentences imposed by the High Court were excessive or based on a wrong principle
- 2.Whether the convictions and sentences should be quashed and set aside on the grounds of guilty pleas, innocence, ill-health, age and family obligations
Key legal issues
#Whether the sentences of four and six years for manslaughter were manifestly excessive
The sentences were legal, appropriate and not based on any wrong principle; the trial judge properly took into account the guilty pleas, remorse, ages and two years spent in remand, and properly treated the assistant chief more severely given his position and the blows he inflicted.
The court reviewed the sentencing judge's reasons, noting that Schofield J separated the assistant chief from the other appellants because of his public position and the two savage blows he inflicted on the deceased which preceded his death. The killing was described as brutal. The aggravating circumstances - a collective, communal beating of two children suspected of theft - outweighed the mitigating factors of plea, sorrow, age and remand time.
Whether guilty pleas said to be entered to avoid prolonged remand, together with age, illness and family obligations, warranted interference with sentence
No. Such factors could not move the court in a case where the appellants had jointly and unlawfully killed a 13-year-old boy in a communal beating.
The written grounds relied on pleas of innocence, personal and family ill-health, and youth or old age. The court held that persons who participate in beating child suspects to death cannot rely on such considerations. Simon Nyamai added nothing in oral submissions. The court therefore declined to quash the convictions or set aside the sentences.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must be unmoved by appeals to age, health or family obligations by persons who have participated in mob-style fatal beatings of suspected thieves.
- Where an accused pleads guilty to manslaughter but the trial judge omits to record a formal conviction, the appellate court may itself record the conviction as a matter of good order.
Court orders
#- 1.Conviction of the appellants for manslaughter formally recorded as a matter of good order, the learned judge having omitted to do so
- 2.Appeals dismissed
- 3.Sentences of four years' imprisonment (and six years for Lucas Odhiambo) left undisturbed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
- Criminal Case No 31 of 1982
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate/criminal appeal to the Court of Appeal against sentence passed by the High Court
Relief refused
#Quashing of convictions and setting aside of sentences
The sentences were lawful, appropriate and not manifestly excessive; pleas of age, health and family obligations could not avail the appellants
Costs
No costs order made (criminal appeal; the judgment contains no costs order)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The sentences were legal, appropriate and not manifestly excessive or based on any wrong principle. These appeals are dismissed.
The appellants will now be convicted of this manslaughter, as a matter of good order, for the learned judge did not do this.
We must be unmoved by these references to age or health or family obligations by such people.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to 'Alias Apudho Odhowo' and 'Elias Apudho' interchangeably; the appellant's name is Elias Apudho Odhowo, suggesting typographical inconsistencies.
The date of delivery contains typographical errors ('Delivered at Kisumunthis 23rd day of June 1983'), and the signature block reads 'AG JUSGE OF APPEAL'.
The narrative inconsistently renders the deceased's mother as 'his mother, Dalmas' whereas Dalmas was earlier identified as Lucas' father ('Lucas’ father, Dalmas, his mother and even Leunida Auma, his grandmother').
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "ELIAS APUDHO ODHOWO & 3 OTHERS vs REPUBLIC [1983] KECA 100 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1983). Criminal Appeal No 38 of 1983. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1983/100/eng@1983-06-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.