Omoke alias Jamaa v Republic (Criminal Appeal 13 of 2019) [2026] KECA 162 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a life sentence for defilement stands because courts cannot change mandatory sentences unless the law is declared unconstitutional.
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 plea of guilty was properly and unequivocally recorded in accordance with Section 207 of the CPC and the principles in Adan v Republic
- 2.Whether the trial and first appellate courts failed to consider the appellant's mitigation contrary to Article 50(1) and Sections 216 and 329 of the CPC
- 3.Whether the mandatory life sentence under Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional for removing judicial discretion and being disproportionate
Key legal issues
#Validity of the plea of guilty
The plea was properly and unequivocally recorded: the charge was read twice in Kiswahili and Ekegusii, the appellant replied 'it is true', and he admitted the prosecution facts the following day without qualification.
The court applied Section 207(1) and (2) of the CPC and the five-step Adan v Republic procedure. The record showed the charge and every element explained in languages the appellant understood, a plea of guilty entered, and an adjournment for facts, giving him a chance to change his plea. He admitted the facts without qualification, so the plea satisfied both statute and the locus classicus principles.
Consideration of mitigation
The appellant was given an opportunity to mitigate and the trial court expressly noted his mitigation; nothing turns on this ground.
Although Section 216 CPC permits reception of evidence on sentence, the offence carried a mandatory sentence leaving no discretion. The record captured the appellant's plea for leniency and the trial court's express acknowledgment and consideration of it, referencing the gravity of the offence against a six-year-old and deterrence. The ground therefore failed.
Constitutionality of the mandatory life sentence under Section 8(2) SOA
The mandatory life sentence is lawful and binding; Muruatetu does not automatically extend to mandatory sentences under the SOA, and this Court has no jurisdiction to vary a statutory sentence.
Relying on the Supreme Court's clarifications in Republic v Joshua Gichuki Mwangi and Republic v Julius Kitsao Manyeso, the court held that Muruatetu's reasoning does not automatically extend to mandatory or minimum sentences in other statutes, and that appellate courts cannot substitute statutory sentences absent a declaration of unconstitutionality. Section 8(2) had not been declared unconstitutional and no misdirection in its application was shown.
Legal principles established
#- A plea of guilty is unequivocal where the charge and every element are read and explained to the accused in a language he understands, his admission recorded, and the facts read to him without qualification, per Section 207 CPC and Adan v Republic
- Where a statute prescribes a mandatory sentence, the mandatory nature alone does not render it unconstitutional; appellate courts have no jurisdiction to alter a statutory sentence unless the statute is first declared unconstitutional
- Second appellate courts are confined to matters of law and cannot interfere with the severity of a lawful statutory sentence
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court remain in force
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisii
- Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal under Section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code, confined to matters of law
Relief refused
#Quashing of the conviction (abandoned at hearing)
The appellant in person clarified he was no longer contesting the conviction
Review or reduction of the life sentence / release
Section 361(1)(a) confines second appeals to matters of law; absent a declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 8(2) SOA, the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the statutory sentence
Alternative order of retrial
Appeal found to lack merit; the plea was properly recorded
Costs
No costs order is recorded in the judgment; the judgment ends with 'It is so ordered.'
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.
Accordingly, we find that the plea was properly recorded, satisfying the principles in Adan v Republic (supra) and the provisions of Section 207 of the CPC and was therefore, unequivocal.
Consequently, we are satisfied that the appellant’s mitigation was considered and nothing turns on this ground.
Following the guidance in Mwangi and Manyeso (supra) the mandatory nature of the sentence alone does not render it unconstitutional.
This Court is therefore, without jurisdiction to vary or reduce the statutory life sentence imposed and afirmed by the courts below.
In the result, we find that the plea of guilty was unequivocal, the mitigation was considered and the sentence of life imprisonment was lawfully and constitutionally imposed under Section 8(2) of the SOA. Reasons wherefore, the appeal is found to lack merit and is dismissed in its entirety.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the judgment states it was delivered on 30th January 2025, yet the hearing date (1st September 2025) and submissions (dated 21st and 26th August 2025) post-date the delivery date
The case title in the record does not name the parties as printed on the memorandum; the appellant's name appears only obliquely through the complainant's initials JKO and the judgment refers to the complainant as JKO while the charge particulars also use JKO
Respondent's citation of a Supreme Court decision appears with a typographical neutral citation '[2024] KFSC 34' in submissions but '[2024] KESC 34' in the court's own discussion
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omoke alias Jamaa v Republic (Criminal Appeal 13 of 2019) [2026] KECA 162 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2018 (from High Court at Kisii); second appeal to the Court of Appeal. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/162/eng@2026-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.