Miano v Republic (Criminal Appeal E019 of 2024) [2026] KECA 628 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed the death penalty remains the lawful sentence for robbery with violence, and appeals arguing otherwise will fail.
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 High Court, upon finding that the evidence proved robbery with violence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code, erred by not expressly setting aside the appellant's conviction for simple robbery under Section 296(1)
- 2.Whether the High Court erred in substituting the sentence of 14 years imprisonment with the death penalty
Key legal issues
#Power of the High Court on first appeal to substitute a conviction on the offence charged where the trial court convicted of a lesser offence
The failure of the first appellate court to expressly set aside the conviction for simple robbery and enter one for robbery with violence is not fatal; the evidence having proved the offence charged, the conviction stands for that offence and the omission is an error curable under Section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code
The appellant was charged under Section 296(2). The trial court's finding that the evidence proved only simple robbery was a misdirection corrected by the High Court, which held the evidence proved robbery with violence. Section 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits the High Court to maintain the conviction but change it to a different offence supported by the evidence. A notice of enhancement was served and the appellant elected to proceed, so no prejudice arose. The court relied on Oluoch v. Republic and the Supreme Court's decision in Republic v. Mwangi.
Legality of the enhanced death sentence for robbery with violence
The death penalty is the lawful sentence for robbery with violence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code; Muruatetu does not apply, and the Court of Appeal on a second appeal cannot review sentence severity where the sentence is legally provided for
Relying on its own decision in Mburu v. Republic and the Supreme Court's direction in Republic v. Mwangi (ISLA), the Court held the death penalty is the penalty prescribed by law for robbery with violence. The Muruatetu 2021 clarification confines that decision to mandatory death sentences for murder. The notice of enhancement was properly served, satisfying Section 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Scope of second appeals under Section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code
A second appeal is confined to matters of law; the Court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact unless based on no evidence
The Court invoked Section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code and its precedents in David Njoroge Macharia, Chemogong and Ogeto to define the narrow scope of a second appeal, framing its determination around the pure question of law whether the High Court erred in law in the conviction and sentence it imposed.
Legal principles established
#- Where the first appellate court finds that the evidence supports the more serious offence charged, it need not expressly set aside the underlying conviction before enhancing the sentence; the conviction stands but for the offence charged
- The High Court on appeal may enhance sentence after serving a notice of enhancement and affording the appellant an opportunity to show cause, even while dismissing the appeal against conviction
- The Muruatetu decision applies only to mandatory death sentences for murder under Sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code and does not invalidate mandatory sentences for other offences such as robbery with violence
- A second appeal is confined to matters of law and this Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless based on no evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.The conviction for robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code and the death sentence imposed by the High Court are upheld
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- CRA No. 393 of 2010
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code (second appeal confined to matters of law)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the death sentence and its reduction to 15 years imprisonment
The death penalty is the sentence provided by law for robbery with violence; Muruatetu applies only to mandatory death sentences for murder under Sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code
A declaration that the conviction for simple robbery under Section 296(1) still stands, rendering the death sentence unlawful
The High Court's finding that the evidence proved robbery with violence effectively substituted the correct conviction; no need to set aside the underlying conviction
Application of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the period of detention before sentence
The appeal, including sentence, failed in its entirety
Costs
No costs order 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.
The upshot of the foregoing is that this appeal is devoid of merit. Therefore, we dismiss it in its entirety.
Accordingly, we are unable to interfere with the sentence of death passed by the High Court, which is provided under the law.
This means that the conviction stood but for the ofience of robbery with violence. As stated above, it was not necessary to set aside the underlying conviction because it still stood.
A second appeal must be confined to points of law and this Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact arrived by the two courts below unless such findings are based on no evidence.
Issues in the judgment
#The trial court's quoted judgment mislabels the Penal Code provisions, referring to Section 296(2) and Section 179(2) as provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code - noted in the original with '(sic)' but indicative of confusion in the record below
The judgment's own rule 12 states the High Court 'sets aside' only the earlier sentence, but the first appellate court's quoted order set aside the 14-year sentence 'and in place thereof we substitute death sentence' while also stating 'this appeal fails and is dismissed', leaving the exact mechanism of the substitution somewhat unclear
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Miano v Republic (Criminal Appeal E019 of 2024) [2026] KECA 628 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Second appeal from Nakuru High Court CRA No. 393 of 2010 (original trial: Nyahururu Principal Magistrate's Court Criminal Case No. 2327 of 2010). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/628/eng@2026-03-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.