Stanley Khakubi Songa v Republic [2018] KECA 76 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed a robbery with violence conviction but replaced the mandatory death sentence with 20 years' imprisonment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Proof of the ingredients of robbery with violence
The offence was proved: the appellant was in the company of two others, armed with dangerous weapons, and violence was used on the complainant, confirmed by medical evidence.
Under section 296(2) of the Penal Code the offence may be proved by showing the offender was armed with a dangerous weapon, was in company, or used violence before or after the robbery. The evidence accepted by the two courts below established all these elements, and credibility findings being questions of fact were not disturbable on second appeal.
Sufficiency of a single witness's evidence
A conviction may rest on the evidence of one credible witness; section 143 of the Evidence Act requires no particular number of witnesses.
Section 143 of the Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove any fact. The fact of multiple armed assailants could be proved by PW1 alone if believed, and the trial court believed him. Credibility was a settled question of fact.
Identification of the appellant
No mistaken identification arose; the appellant was arrested at the scene while being held by the complainant.
PW1 recognised the appellant and his two accomplices as neighbours, and the appellant was arrested at the scene of the robbery by members of the public while PW1 held onto him, with PW2 and PW3 confirming the arrest. He had no opportunity to escape and create doubt as to identity.
Constitutionality of the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence
The mandatory death sentence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code is unconstitutional to the extent that it deprives courts of sentencing discretion; the Muruatetu reasoning applies mutatis mutandis.
Section 296(2) proceeds on the same footing as section 204, prescribing a mandatory death sentence. Following Kittiny and Kihunyu, the Supreme Court's reasoning in Muruatetu applies, rendering the death sentence a discretionary maximum punishment and entitling the Court to interfere where the sentence is disproportionate.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal under section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court of Appeal is confined to matters of law and cannot interfere with findings of fact by the two lower courts unless they considered matters they ought not to have, or failed to consider matters they should have, or were plainly wrong.
- The reasoning in Muruatetu on the unconstitutionality of the mandatory death sentence under section 204 of the Penal Code applies equally to the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence under section 296(2); that sentence is a discretionary maximum punishment.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the appeal against conviction
- 2.Allowance of the appeal against sentence
- 3.Quashing of the sentence of death
- 4.Substitution of a term of imprisonment of 20 years with effect from 24th December 2008
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
- H.C. CR.A. No. 194 of 2009
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code (second appeal limited to questions of law)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mbithi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E080 of 2024) [2026] KECA 1305 (KLR)[2026] KECA 1305 (KLR)10 Jul 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stanley Khakubi Songa v Republic [2018] KECA 76 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/76/eng@2018-12-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.