Peter Kitai Wafula v Republic [2007] KECA 228 (KLR)

The court reproduced section 361(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which bars appeals on matters of fact, including severity of sentence, and bars appeals against sentence except where the High Court enhanced it or the subordinate court had no power to pass it. Since the appeal before it was solely on severity and the High Court had merely rejected the first appeal summarily without enhancing sentence, the second appeal could not stand.

The court perused the record on its own motion and found that the charge and every element was explained to the appellant in Kiswahili, which he understood; he admitted the charge and the facts and was convicted on his own plea. Applying Adan vs. Republic [1973] EA 445, the court held the magistrate complied strictly with the legal requirements, and no complaint on procedure had been raised in the first appeal.

The appellant, conducting his appeal in person, sought an order that the case start de novo on the basis that he pleaded guilty out of confusion, without explaining the confusion and despite having thumb-printed the memoranda of appeal. The court held that because the request was absent from the grounds of appeal in both courts and unsupported by reasons, it was an afterthought it could not accede to.