Odhiambo v Republic (Criminal Appeal 151 of 2019) [2026] KECA 772 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal upheld a man's life sentence for defilement, confirming that new arguments cannot be introduced for the first time on a second appeal in Kenya.
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 sentence meted on the appellant was excessively harsh and unconstitutional
- 2.Whether the prosecution case was dented for lack of the testimony of the doctor who examined the complainant
- 3.Whether the prosecution case was irregular, inconsistent and contradictory and therefore insufficient to secure a conviction
Key legal issues
#Constitutionality and severity of the mandatory life sentence under section 8(2) SOA
The ground was not properly before the Court as it was not raised on first appeal, and in any event the mandatory sentences under section 8 of the SOA were affirmed as constitutional by the Supreme Court in Republic v Mwangi
On second appeal the Court's mandate under section 361(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code extends only to matters of law; severity of sentence is a matter of fact. The first appellate court made no finding on harshness of sentence, so the ground cannot be assessed. The Supreme Court in Republic v Mwangi affirmed that for as long as section 8 remains in the statutes unattended, the mandatory sentences therein, including mandatory life imprisonment under section 8(2), are legal.
Admissibility of medical evidence produced by a person other than the examining doctor
Section 33 of the Evidence Act rendered the P3 form produced by PW3 admissible in place of Dr. Jane Atieno, who was unavailable, and the appellant was not prejudiced as he raised no objection and cross-examined PW3
The first appellate court found PW3 was conversant with the doctor's handwriting and signature, had worked with her for years, and she was out of hospital for further studies. The appellant stated he had no objection when PW3 gave evidence and in fact cross-examined him. Section 33 admits statements of persons who cannot be found or whose attendance cannot be procured without unreasonable delay or expense.
Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to identify the perpetrator
The cumulative circumstances - the appellant being the last person with the child, her disappearance overnight, her emerging from the bush near his home stating he took her there, and his arrest while hiding - formed a complete chain unerringly pointing to the appellant
Applying the Abanga tests as restated in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed, the Court found the circumstances cogently and firmly established, of definite tendency, and cumulatively forming a chain so complete that within all human probability the crime was committed by the appellant and none else. The elements of age and penetration were proved by the Child Health Card and the P3 form respectively.
Alleged inconsistencies, contradictions and irregularities in the prosecution case
No contradictions or inconsistencies were established, and the ground was in any event improperly raised for the first time on second appeal
The appellant merely queried why the victim slept in the same bed as her father, how she could walk after defilement, and why her mother did not testify. The Court found no evidence was tendered to the contrary to establish contradictions, and since the ground was not raised on first appeal there was no finding of the courts below for review. It relied on John Kariuki Gikonyo and Richard Munene.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal the Court of Appeal is confined to matters of law and will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the two lower courts unless based on no evidence, a misapprehension of evidence, or wrong principles
- New grounds not raised on first appeal cannot be raised for the first time on second appeal where there is no finding by the courts below on them
- The mandatory life sentence under section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is constitutional per the Supreme Court's decision in Republic v Mwangi
- A conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence if it cogently and firmly establishes circumstances of definite tendency unerringly pointing to the accused, forming a complete chain
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 are upheld
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Siaya
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal under Section 361(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Relief refused
#Setting aside of life sentence as harsh, excessive or unconstitutional
Severity of sentence is a matter of fact not law on second appeal, and the ground was not raised on first appeal; further, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of mandatory sentences under section 8 of the SOA
Exclusion of PW3's testimony in place of the examining doctor
Section 33 of the Evidence Act admitted the medical evidence and the appellant was not prejudiced, having not objected and having cross-examined PW3
Interference with conviction on grounds of alleged inconsistencies and contradictions
No contradictions or inconsistencies were demonstrated and the ground was raised for the first time on second appeal
Costs
No order as to costs is recorded 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 our analysis is that this appeal is found to lack merit and is dismissed in its entirety.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Republic v Mwangi (supra) afirmed the constitutionality of the sentences under the said section and this includes mandatory life sentences under Section 8(2) of SOA.
In our considered view, the circumstances from which the inference of guilt may be drawn in this case were cogently and firmly established, and they unerringly pointed towards the guilt of the appellant.
Based on the evidence before court, we find no basis to interfere with finding of the first appellate court.
In line with that finding, we are disinclined to address matters where there is no opinion by the two courts below on new issues introduced for the first time on a second appeal
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of this appeal is not stated anywhere in the judgment, and the judgment text contains inconsistent references to the first appellate judge (Makau J. referred to as 'he' in places, 'the learned trial Judge' elsewhere)
Respondent's counsel is referred to with inconsistent pronouns in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odhiambo v Republic (Criminal Appeal 151 of 2019) [2026] KECA 772 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Criminal Appeal (not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/772/eng@2026-04-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.