Chamwada & another v Republic
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence remains valid, because the Muruatetu ruling only applies to murder.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence is excessive or unlawful in light of Muruatetu
The sentence is lawful; Muruatetu 1 applies solely to murder, and mandatory sentences for other capital offences remain binding until successfully challenged up to the Supreme Court.
The Court traced the jurisprudence from the five-judge bench in Joseph Njuguna Mwaura, through Muruatetu 2 directions, to Republic v Mwangi (ISLA), all confirming that the Muruatetu rationale was confined to murder under sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code. Section 296(2) prescribes death in mandatory terms, and no challenge to its validity has been escalated to the Supreme Court. The trial court considered mitigation and the findings were upheld on first appeal, so there is no basis to interfere.
Scope of a second appeal under section 361(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code
A second appeal is restricted to matters of law only; the Court must accept the lower courts' findings of fact.
Relying on Stephen M'Irungi & Another v Republic, the Court restated that where the right of appeal is confined to questions of law, the appellate court must resist treating findings of fact as holdings of law or mixed findings, and may only interfere where no reasonable tribunal could have reached the conclusion on the evidence. The sole ground raised was on sentence, a matter the Court could address as one of law, but it found the sentence lawful.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal confined to questions of law, the Court of Appeal must accept the findings of fact of the lower courts and not interfere unless no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion.
- The Muruatetu declaration of unconstitutionality of the mandatory death sentence applies only to murder; mandatory death sentences for robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code remain valid and binding.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Death sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court left undisturbed
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kakamega
- HCCRA No. 53 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal under Section 361(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, confined to matters of law
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chamwada & another v Republic", Case Analysis (2025). Criminal Appeal 167 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2278/eng@2025-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.