Adon'go v Republic (Criminal Appeal 130 of 2020) [2026] KECA 605 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal cut a murder sentence from 35 to 25 years and ordered it counted from the date of arrest, not conviction.
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 trial court's sentence of thirty-five (35) years imprisonment was manifestly excessive
- 2.Whether the trial court adequately considered the appellant's mitigation, including that he was a first-time offender
- 3.Whether the period spent by the appellant in remand custody was properly computed in the sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Key legal issues
#Test for interference with sentence on appeal
The appellate court will not easily interfere with sentence unless it is manifestly excessive, the trial court overlooked a material factor, took into account wrong material, or acted on a wrong principle.
The court adopted the classic formulation in Gacheru v Republic, reaffirming that sentencing is a discretionary function of the trial court resting on the facts of each case. Disagreement with the sentence alone is insufficient; the appellant must demonstrate one of the enumerated grounds before the appellate court will disturb the sentence.
Weight to be accorded to mitigation and offender individualisation
Although a custodial sentence was inevitable, 35 years for a first offender was manifestly excessive because the mitigation was noted but not given substantial weight.
The court weighed the gravity of the offence - loss of life is irreversible - against mitigating factors: the appellant was a first offender, was remorseful, and had a wife and young child dependent on him. Balancing retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation and community protection, the court found the sentence harsher than warranted and reduced it to 25 years.
Computation of sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
The sentence must run from the date of the appellant's arrest, 28th December 2017, as the remand period was not computed by the trial court.
Counsel for the appellant submitted, and the prosecution conceded, that the time the appellant spent in remand custody was not computed when the custodial sentence was imposed. The court applied Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed that the sentence run from the date of arrest.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will not easily interfere with sentence unless it is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case, or the trial court overlooked some material factor, took into account some wrong material, or acted on a wrong principle.
- Where mitigation is noted but not accorded substantial weight, and the sentence is on the harsher side for a first offender, the appellate court may interfere with sentence.
- A sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offence while individualising the sentence to fit both the crime and the offender.
- Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a custodial sentence must run from the date of the accused's arrest.
Court orders
#- 1.The sentence of thirty-five (35) years imprisonment is set aside and substituted with a sentence of twenty-five (25) years imprisonment
- 2.The sentence shall run from the date of the appellant's arrest, being 28th December 2017, pursuant to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
- Not stated in judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate/second appellate jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal's appellate powers over High Court criminal convictions and sentences (criminal appeal)
Relief refused
#Substitution of the sentence with twenty (20) years imprisonment as urged by the appellant
The court found 25 years sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the offence while accounting for mitigation and rehabilitation prospects
Any challenge to the conviction
The appellant did not challenge the conviction in his memorandum of appeal
Costs
No order as to costs was made 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.
It is now settled law, following several authorities by this Court and by the High Court, that sentence is a matter that rests in the discretion of the trial court.
While a custodial sentence was inevitable in the circumstances of this case, we are persuaded that a term of thirty-five (35) years' imprisonment, in light of the fact that the appellant is a first offender, and the totality of the circumstances of the case, was on the harsher side and thus manifestly excessive.
It is our considered view that a sentence of twenty-five (25) years' imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. The sentence sufficiently reflects the seriousness of the offence, while at the same time taking into account the mitigating factors and the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation.
Considering the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the sentence shall run from the date the appellant was arrested, which for avoidance of doubt, is 28th December, 2017.
The appeal to that extent succeeds.
Issues in the judgment
#The coram signature blocks list the judges' titles inconsistently - one as 'JUDGE APPEAL' and two as 'JUDGE OF APPEAL' - and no specific appeal number or trial court case number appears anywhere in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Adon'go v Republic (Criminal Appeal 130 of 2020) [2026] KECA 605 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Criminal Appeal (sentence) - memorandum of appeal dated 24th February 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/605/eng@2026-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.