Wahome v Republic (Criminal Appeal 189 of 2019) [2025] KECA 434 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld a 20-year sentence, confirming it cannot reduce sentences on second appeals—only trial and High Court judges can.
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 Court of Appeal, on a second appeal confined to issues of law, has jurisdiction to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial court
- 2.Whether the appellant, having abandoned his appeal against conviction, was entitled to a reduction of sentence
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to reduce the appellant's sentence on a second appeal
The Court held that severity of sentence is a matter of fact excluded from second-appeal jurisdiction under Section 361(1)(a), and that the sentencing discretion of the trial court was properly exercised judicially, so there was no basis for interference.
Section 361(1)(a) confines a second appeal to issues of law and expressly designates severity of sentence as a matter of fact. Sentencing is a discretionary exercise that must be exercised judicially. Interference is warranted only where the discretion was not exercised judicially - a material fact overlooked, an irrelevant factor considered, or the sentence so harsh or lenient as to constitute an obvious error of principle. Here the trial magistrate considered the probation report, mitigation and the heinous nature of the offence, and the first appellate court found no reason to interfere; accordingly the maximum twenty-year term could not be faulted.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal under Section 361(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court of Appeal is confined to matters of law only, and severity of sentence, being a matter of fact, is not open to the Court.
- An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's exercise of sentencing discretion unless the sentence is manifestly excessive, a material factor was overlooked, wrong material was taken into account, or the court acted on a wrong principle.
Court orders
#- 1.Upheld the judgment of the High Court
- 2.Dismissed the appeal in its totality
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court (first appellate instance, Bungoma)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 361(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (second appeal confined to matters of law)
Relief refused
#Reduction of the twenty-year imprisonment sentence
The trial magistrate appropriately considered the facts and applied the law; the maximum sentence was not excessive given the severing of the complainant's right arm and permanent disability.
Appeal against conviction
Abandoned by the appellant at the plenary hearing, where he confirmed he was pursuing only a reduction of sentence.
Costs
No costs order recorded in the judgment.
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 upshot of the above is that the appeal against sentence has no merit. We uphold the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the appeal in its totality.
This being a second appeal, the Court’s jurisdiction is confined to considerations of issues of law only as provided under Section 361(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
an appellate court would not normally intervene where a trial court has exercised its discretion unless it is established that such discretion has not been exercised judicially
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the appellant 'has appealed the judgment of the High Court' but does not give the High Court case number or the name of the judge who heard the first appeal.
The judgment text is internally inconsistent as to the offence date, recording the incident as 25th April 2013, while the arrest is dated 26th April 2016 without noting the three-year gap beyond the investigating officer's testimony.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wahome v Republic (Criminal Appeal 189 of 2019) [2025] KECA 434 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Criminal Appeal (not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/434/eng@2025-02-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.