Daniel Njenga Chege v Republic
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence still stands, despite the Muruatetu decision, and dismissed the appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Scope of the second appellate court's jurisdiction
The Court is bound by section 361(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code to consider only issues of law and must not disturb concurrent findings of fact absent perversion of evidence.
Relying on Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & another v Republic and M'Riungu v Republic, the Court restated that where the right of appeal is confined to questions of law, the second appellate court must accept findings of fact of the lower courts and interfere only where no reasonable tribunal could have reached the conclusion on the evidence. Since the appellant abandoned the conviction appeal, no factual question arose.
Whether the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence could be reduced on account of mitigating circumstances
No. Section 296(2) of the Penal Code prescribes death in mandatory terms, and the Supreme Court's Muruatetu directions confirm that mandatory or minimum sentences in statutes other than murder remain valid, so the Court of Appeal cannot interfere.
The Court noted the Supreme Court's directions of July 6, 2021 in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus Curiae), which clarified that only murder sentences attract judicial discretion and that mandatory or minimum sentences have not been invalidated. Although the Court criticised the disparity between sentencing for murder and robbery with violence as repugnant to justice, it held its hands were tied and the sentence must stand.
The Court's observations on the mandatory minimum sentencing regime
The Court expressed strong obiter criticism of the discriminatory sentencing regime, urging lawmakers to reform it.
The Court observed it was puzzling that a murderer may receive a lenient discretionary sentence while robbery with violence, even where only a threat is made, carries a mandatory death sentence. It described this as repugnant to justice and expressed hope that lawmakers would address the injustice, but these remarks did not alter the outcome and are not binding.
Legal principles established
#- A second appellate court is confined to questions of law and must respect concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below unless those findings are unsupported by the evidence or are based on a perversion of the evidence.
- The death sentence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code for robbery with violence remains mandatory; the Muruatetu discretion on sentence applies only to murder and does not extend to statutory mandatory minimum sentences.
Court orders
#- 1.The appellant's appeal is dismissed
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya (Naivasha)
- HCCRA No 67 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal under section 361(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code confining the appeal to questions of law
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Daniel Njenga Chege v Republic", Case Analysis (2025). Criminal Appeal (as per record; appeal from Naivasha HCCRA No 67 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1207/eng@2025-07-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.