Manyaa v Republic (Criminal Appeal 84 of 2019) [2024] KECA 1835 (KLR)

The Court invoked Section 361(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Kaingo v Republic formulation, holding that the test on second appeal is whether there was any evidence on which the trial court found as it did. The appellant's challenge to the sufficiency and consistency of the evidence was therefore an impermissible invitation to re-evaluate facts.

Age was proved by testimony and a birth certificate showing the complainant was born in October 2003. Penetration was established by the complainant's credible evidence, consistent with the neighbour's observation of bleeding and the clinical officer's finding of lacerations on the labia majora. Identity was established because the complainant knew the appellant as a neighbour and named him immediately upon reporting the incident.

The appellant first raised the breach of Article 50(2) rights and the constitutionality of the mandatory life sentence in this Court. Because the High Court never addressed these issues, there was nothing upon which the grounds could be anchored, and the Court declined to consider them.

The Court acknowledged that in Manyeso and Ayako it had held indeterminate life imprisonment unconstitutional, but noted that this jurisprudence has taken a different turn following the Supreme Court's binding decision in Republic v Mwangi, which held that mandatory sentences leave the trial court with no discretion and directed that constitutional challenges to such sentences must be properly filed, presented and fully argued before the High Court and escalated through the appropriate channels.