Collins Wekesa Wanyonyi v Republic

Appeal 5. Aggrieved by both the conviction and sentence, the Appellant filed his undated Petition of Appeal, in which he raised the following grounds of appeal in his memorandum of appeal filed on 3rd July 2020, which I shall reproduce in the verbatim: a. That, I am the first offender your lordship hence remorseful for the offence committed. b. That, your lordship the law Court trial magistrate sentence was harsh and excessive as per the circumstances. c. That, the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by basing on speculation and contradiction evidence from the prosecution side witnesses. d. That, the learned trial magistrate failed to appreciate the fact that there was no eye witnesses or was there any good reason to warrant a conviction. e. That, the learned trial magistrate erred failed to re-evaluate and analyze the medical report that was presented before the Court so as to warrant a conviction the broken hymen can be done by anything not basically the said accused. f. That, the sentence meted of 20 years the Complainant had an ill intention with the said accused person since we lack the sufficient proof or evidence to link the accused person with the offence. g. That, I request for proceeding to be furnished in time to enable the Appellant adduce more grounds before the hearing date. 6. The Appellant prayed that this Court allows his appeal in its entirety, quash his conviction and the trial Court sentence be set aside, and he be set at liberty. 7. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. Both parties complied with the Court directions. 8. The duty of a first appellate Court was restated in the case of David Njuguna Wairimu vs. Republic [2010] eKLR wherein the Court of Appeal cited the case of Okeno v. R [1972] EA. 32 and held thus: “ The duty of the first appellate court is to analyse and re-evaluate the evidence which was before the trial court and itself come to its own conclusions on that evidence without overlooking the conclusions of the trial court. There are instances where the first appellant court may, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, come to the same conclusions as those of the lower court. It may rehash those conclusions. We do not think there is anything objectionable in doing so, provided it is clear that the court has considered the evidence on the basis of the law and the evidence to satisfy itself on the correctness of the decisions.” Evidence 9. After a brief voir dire examination, the trial magistrate established that the Complainant was intelligent and she had understood what an oath was and its sanctions and ruled that she should give sworn statement. 10. It was the Respondent’s case that the Complainant, PW1, was 14 years old at the time of taking the stand as she was born on 8th August 2005. According to her, the Appellant herein was a neighbor and that on 27th January 2019, her friend, Fai, and Appellant had told her to carry her clothes to Malaa https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18299/eng@2025-11-14 2

page 2 of 10

Junction, and she had agreed so to do on the mistaken belief that they were heading to school. She told the Court that they had left her house with the Appellant on the motorcycle and proceeded to his homestead as her friend, Fai, had gone back to her home. She told the Court that they had arrived at Bukembe, the Appellant’s homestead, at around 4 p.m. and lunch was brought by the Appellant’s mother for them to eat. 11. PW1 told the Court that the Appellant had successfully seduced her into engaging in coitus and for the entire week they had sex. She told the Court that the Appellant had taken her to his “simba” while there was still light outside, as it was during the day, and she was wearing a flower skirt with a blouse and a pantie while the Appellant wore a trouser, shirt and underwear. It was her testimony that while they removed their clothing while still standing up, she proceeded to sleep on the bed. She testified that she had known that sex involved (at this point the witness touched her private part) calling it “maharagwe” ‘bean” a part she uses to urinate and that was where the sex had happened. According to her, the Appellant had used his “mkwaju” “club” the one he uses to urinate and that while on top of her they indulged in sexual intercourse. 12. PW1 testified that she had not declined the Appellant’s sexual advances and that they continued to have sexual intercourse on 27th January 2019, till the next day and that she had stayed at the Appellant’s house for a short period. She told the Court that that the Appellant had asked her to bear him a child and she had told him that it was all dependent on God’s plans. It was her testimony that on 5th February 2019, while at the Appellant’s house with celebrations ongoing, the police came and took her and the Appellant to Matisi Police Station where they were flogged and later taken to Webuye Police Station. 13. On cross-examination, she told the Court that what she had recorded in her statement and what she was stating in Court was the truth and that it was her friend, Fai, who had packed the clothes for her. According to her, there existed no relationship between her and the Appellant, and that the Appellant had not forced her to have any sexual intercourse with him. She told the Court that the Appellant had told her that he loved her after their first sexual intercourse and she was living at the Appellant’s homestead. 14. On re-examination, she told the Court that on 5th February 2019, there was a ceremony at the Appellant’s homestead as the Appellant’s sister was getting married and her husband was bringing dowry. She told the Court that at the time of the Appellant’s arrest she was not with him. 15. PW2, ZNJ, testified that that the victim was her grandchild and that she was born in the year 2005. According to her, on 27th January 2019, she had been informed by a neighbor that the Complainant had been seen being carried on a motorbike and that the neighbor had not known the person who was carrying her, but described the person as a tall and brown boy. She quickly proceeded back to her home to confirm if what her neighbor had said was true. When she did not find the Complainant at home, she rushed back to her neighbour’s house seeking for help to find her. She told the Court that on same day she had proceeded to the village elder and called her son, JJ, to notify him of the Complainant’s disappearance, and that her son had later called her to notify her that the Complainant had been found at Webuye Police Station. On arriving at the station, she was told to take the victim to Webuye SubCounty Hospital for examination. 16. On cross-examination, she told the Court that she is the Complainant’s grandmother and that what she had recorded as her statement was exactly what she was restarting before the trial Court and it was the truth. She maintained that she had not been aware of how the Complainant and the Appellant had been found and apprehended. She finally testified that she had only been told that the Appellant had been seen carrying the victim on a motor cycle. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18299/eng@2025-11-14 3

page 3 of 10

17. PW3, JJ, testified that the Complainant was his niece and that on the night of 27th January 2019, he had received a call from PW2 alerting him of disappearance of the victim. On 28th January 2019, he had quickly proceeded home and commenced a search for the Complainant within the neighbourhood without success. He then lodged a missing person report at Matisi Administration Police Camp. 18. PW3 told the trial court that on 30th January 2019, PW2 had called him and told him that one of her neighbours, one Moses, had encountered the Complainant and he had quickly alerted the Police at Matisi AP Camp who then advised him to proceed to Webuye Police Station. 19. PW3 testified that on 31st January 2019, he traced Moses who took him to Matisi Market where he had previously seen the Complainant and Moses had then linked him to a home guard who had seen the victim with a boy from Bukembe. That the home guard had directed him to the homestead of the Appellant herein. He then briefed the police of the new developments. On his investigations at Bukembe stage, he had established the identity of the Appellant and one of the motor bike (boda boda) operators told him that they knew the Appellant and that they were ware that he had just gotten married to a small girl. The residence of the appellant was then pointed out to him. That he then returned to Matisi AP Camp wherein he was referred to Webuye Police Station to secure a warrant of arrest. 20. It was the testimony of PW3 that on 5th February 2019, while in the company of 3 police officers they proceeded to the Appellant’s residence while posing as guests looking for the Appellant and they apprehended him. It was his testimony that from where he had been standing, he had sighted the Complainant sitting right outside the Appellant’s mother house with other children and he proceeded to take her into his custody. That they then took the victim and the Appellant to Matisi AP Camp and later Webuye Police Station. He told the Court that the Complainant was born on 6th September 2005. 21. On cross-examination, Pw3 told the Court that he resided in Bukembe and the Appellant herein stayed at Munaa, Bukembe. It was his testimony that he had not be acquainted to the Appellant herein prior to the incident and that he had never tried to lease any property from the Appellant’s father on 28th December 2018. He maintained that he had only spoken to the Appellant’s father when the trial began and that he only came to know the Appellant upon his apprehension. 22. PW4 Moses Masika Wakhungu testified that he had known the victim as she resided with PW2 who attended the same church as him and was a neigbour. He told the Court that prior to the incident he had not known the Appellant herein and that it was only PW2 who had alerted him of the disappearance of the Complainant. He recalled on 30th January 2019, he had met the Complainant at Matisi market and when he had tried to stop her she pretended not know him and continued with what she was doing. He told the Court that the Complainant was with someone and that he followed them to see where they were going and that he later alerted PW2. He did a dock identification of the person he had seen the Complainant with on 30th January 2019, as the Appellant herein before the Court. 23. On cross-examination, he told the Court that he was a neighbor of the Complainant and PW2 and that he attended the same church with PW2 and maintained that on 30th January 2019, at around 6 p.m. he seen the Appellant with the Complainant at Matisi market. 24. PW5, APC Jeremiah Kamau No. 25xxx Matisis AP, testified that on 5th February 2019, while at Matisi AP Camp he was summoned by Corporal Charles Kituyi who briefed him of a reported case of someone who had been seen with a child who had gone missing and that the child had been suspected to be in a particular home. That while in the company of his two colleagues and PW3 they proceeded to the Appellant’s homestead and they found the Appellant together with the Complainant. They then https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18299/eng@2025-11-14 4

page 4 of 10

apprehended both of them and escorted them to Matisi Administration Police Camp. He did a dock identification of the person he arrested as being the Appellant. 25. On cross-examination, he told the Court that the Appellant had been arrested at his homestead on 5th February 2019, at Munaa area and that when asked of the whereabouts of the Complainant the had showed them where she was. He had disclosed that the Complainant had been outside his house preparing a meal. 26. PW6, No. 25xxx APC Tuadi Ali, testified that on 5th February 2019, while at Munaa village with his colleagues they had arrested the Appellant herein who also led them to where the victim had been cooking in the company of the Appellant’s mother outside the kitchen within the Appellant’s residence. He did a dock identification of the person he apprehended as being the Appellant herein. 27. On cross-examination, he stated that he was the arresting officer and that they had gotten to the Appellant’s compound at 11.30 a.m. wherein they found the Appellant inside his house in the homestead, but apprehended him when he was outside his house. It was his testimony that the Appellant had told him that the victim was his wife. 28. PW7, Erick Cheleka Timbiti, testified that he was a Clinical Officer then based at Kapuchai Health Centre but had previously been stationed at Webuye Hospital. According to him, he had been working at Webuye Hospital when the victim was brought by the Police from Webuye Police Station on 5th February 2019, with a history of defilement. It was his testimony that, on examination of the Complainant, he had observed that she had been in fair general condition. Externally, the Complainant’s vagina had been normal and there were no bruises and tears, and he had noted that the’ Complainant’s hymen had been broken. On laboratory examination, the high vaginal swab had indicated presence of epithelial cells found in the urine indicating presence of an infection and she had been placed on antibiotics. He told the Court that he filled the Complainant’s P3 form on 5th February 2019, which he produced in Court as PEXH 2. He told the Court that the Appellant herein was also examined. He also produced the victim’s treatment notes and laboratory request forms as PEXH No 3 and 4 respectively. 29. On cross examination, he noted that both the Appellant and the Complainant had leukocytes present in their urine analysis meaning they both had a similar infection but there were no spermatozoa seen in the Complainant. His prognosis was that the Complainant had been defiled. 30. PW8, No. 38xxx PC Douglas Njoroge, testified that he was attached to Nzoia Police Station and that he was the investigating officer. He told the Court that on 7th February 2019, he had received two officers from Webuye Police Station with a report of defilement. He told the Court that the officers had already recorded the statements of the Complainant, the witnesses and that of the Appellant. He produced the Complainant’s Birth Certificate in Court as PEXH 1 and made a dock identification of the person who had been brought to the station and charged as the Appellant. 31. On cross-examination, he told the Court that he was the investigating officer in that matter and that he had been given the file by a previous officer who had proceeded to Kiganjo for training. He stated that the Appellant was booked for the offence of defilement and that the previous officer visited the scene, recorded various statements of witnesses and recorded everything in the investigations diary and took over and was guided by the contents as captured in the investigation diary. 32. At the close of the Respondent’s case, the Appellant was found to have a case to answer and was thus placed on his defence whereupon he tendered his unsworn evidence. He denied committing the alleged offence and insisted that there was bad blood between him and PW3 after he had advised his father not to lease any land to him and that the charges against him were as a result of the warning PW3 had issued https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18299/eng@2025-11-14 5

page 5 of 10

to him when leaving their home. He told the Court that at the time of his arrest he was not informed of the exact offence he had committed and the charges against him were simply a frame up. Issues for Determination 33. I have considered the Appellant’s grounds of appeal, the evidence adduced before the trial Court as well as the rival submissions of parties herein and the applicable law and the issues for determination emanating therefrom are as follows: a. Whether the Respondent proved its case to the desired threshold; b. Whether the sentence meted upon the Appellant was appropriate. Analysis and Determination a. Whether the Respondent proved its case to the desired threshold; 34. 35. The Appellant was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8 (1) as read with Section 8 (2) of the Sexual Offences Act which provides: 8(1) A person who commits an act which causes penetration with a child is guilty of an offence termed defilement 8(2) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life. The offence of defilement is rooted on three main ingredients being the age of the victim (must be a minor), penetration and the proper identification of the perpetrator. These ingredients are provided for under Section 8(1) of the sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006 and must each be proven for a conviction to issue. (see George Opondo Olunga vs. Republic [2016] eKLR.) Proof of age of the Complainant. 36. A child is defined as a person under the age of eighteen years. Is the victim herein a child? 37. In the case of Pandya v Republic [1957] E.A 336, the Court held that: “ 14. 38. The offence of defilement is rooted on three main ingredients being the age of the victim (must be a minor), penetration and the proper identification of the perpetrator. These ingredients are provided for under section 8 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act No.3 of 2006.” A Certificate of Birth Serial No. 84xxx issued on 23rd May 2019, reveals that the victim was born on 6th September 2005. The offence that is the subject of this appeal was allegedly committed between 27th January 2019 and 5th February 2019. By simple calculation the Complainant as at the first date of the commission of the offence was aged 13 years 4 months 21 days.Her 14th year Birthday would have been on 6th September 2019. The age 14 given in the charge sheet is therefore not entirely correct. It may have been arrived at by considering the years between 2005 and 2019 without paying due attention to the date of birth and the month. However, the Complainant erred when she told the Court on 16th May 2019, that she was 14 years old. Having been 13 years old at the time of the alleged offence, it’s no doubt that she was a child or a minor below the age of 18 years. The error in the charge sheet is curable under Section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code as it did not occasion a failure of justice. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18299/eng@2025-11-14 6

page 6 of 10

Proof of penetration 39. Penetration is proved through the evidence of the Complainant as corroborated by medical evidence. The testimony of the Complainant coupled with a medical report must be sufficient to determine whether penetration occurred. 40. Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act provides that: “ Penetration” means the partial or complete insertion of the genital organs of a person into the genital organs of another person; 41. In George Owiti Raya Vs Republic [2013] eKLR it was held that: “ There was superficial penetration because there was injury on the vaginal opening as the medical evidence has indicated and further there was a whitish-yellow foul-smelling discharge seen on the genitalia... it remains therefore that there can be penetration without going past the hymen membrane.” 42. It was the evidence of the Complainant that on 27th September 2019, the Appellant told her that they engage in coitus and the whole of that week they had coital relations as she had consent to it. She told the Court that the Appellant took her to his “simba”. That the Appellant used his “mkwaju” which he inserted into her vagina “maharagwe” and they engaged in sexual intercourse from 27th January 2019 to the date of their apprehension on 5th February 2019. The testimony of PW3 Corroborated that of PW1. The victim was with the Appellant in his house for precisely 9 days. When she was later traced, she was found outside the Appellant’s mother’s kitchen cooking with her. The evidence of PW5 was that while arresting the Appellant he had asked him of the whereabouts of the Complainant and he had shown them where she was. 43. The key evidence relied by the Courts in rape cases and defilement in order to prove penetration is the Complainant’s own testimony which is usually corroborated by the medical report presented by the medical officer. PW7, the Clinical Officer who examined the Complainant at Webuye Sub-County Hospital observed that the vagina was normal, there was presence of epithelial cells indicating presence of an infection that was treated with antibiotics and the hymen was broken. PW7 was of the opinion that the absence of hymen shows penetration could have occurred. 44. The mere fact that no spermatozoa are found does not necessarily mean that there was no penetration though its presence may well prove that there was penetration, though again that is not conclusive proof. In Mwangi vs. Republic [1984] KLR 595 at 603, the Court rendered itself thus: “ The presence of spermatozoa alone in a woman’s vagina is not conclusive proof that she has had sexual intercourse nor is absence of spermatozoa in her vagina proof of the contrary. What is required to prove that sexual intercourse has taken place is proof of penetration, an essential fact of the offence of rape.” 45. The trial Court on penetration held that; “ …………From Section C of the P3 form, it is clear that whereas the Complainant had no bruises or lacerations, her hymen was missing. In this respect, the medical evidence by PW7, the Clinical Officer, that the Complainant’s hymen was broken at the time of her medical examination was corroboration of the evidence of PW1 that there was penetration.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18299/eng@2025-11-14 7

page 7 of 10

46. In the case of Erick Onyango Ondeng V. Republic (2014) eKLR the Court of Appeal held as follows on the aspect of penetration: “ In sexual offences, the slightest penetration of a female sex organ by a male sex organ is sufficient to constitute the offence. It is not necessary that the hymen be ruptured." 47. Similarly, in the case of The Supreme Court of Uganda held in the case of Bassita vs. Uganda S.C. Criminal Appeal Number 35 of 1995, that: “ The act of sexual intercourse or penetration may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Usually, the sexual intercourse is proved by the victim’s own evidence and corroborated by the medical evidence or other evidence. Though desirable it is not a hard and fast rule that the victim’s evidence and medical evidence must always be adduced in every case of defilement to prove sexual intercourse or penetration. Whatever evidence the prosecution may wish to adduce, to prove its case, such evidence must be such that it is sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt”. 48. The Appellant denied having defiled the Complainant and insisted that the charges levelled against him were a frame up. 49. It is clear that the Complainant had been defiled and that the Clinical Officer (PW7) confirmed the same. When confronted the Appellant referred to the complainant as his wife. I am thus satisfied that penetration was proved by the Respondent to the required standard. Whether the Appellant was positivity identiffed by the Complainant as her assailant. 50. As regards the issue of the identity of the Appellant as the perpetrator of the crime, the Appellant categorically stated that the lack of eye witnesses did not pass the test of circumstantial evidence. The Complainant testified on how she was defiled, it is unlikely that in defilement cases which are committed in privacy there would be an eyewitness. On cross-examination, the Complainant testified that she knew the Appellant as a neighbor as the distance between Chebesi, where she hails from, and Bukembe, where the Appellant resides, is near and one uses Kshs. 150/- with a motorbike. The Complainant spent 9 days with the Appellant at his homestead and she viewed the offender from a close position and that her narration of the incident did not take place abruptly but that there was a sequence of events that took place before the she was defiled, like the arrival of the Appellant to her house, packing of her clothes and the motorbike ride to his homestead. Further, PW4 testified that he saw the Complainant with someone at Matisi market. He followed them and saw where they entered and proceeded to find more information from the home guard about the man and that is how he was able to inform the Complainant’s family on how to trace her. During his evidence-in-chief, he was able to conduct a dock examination of the person he saw the Complainant with at the market as being the Appellant herein. The facts reveal beyond doubt that the Appellant was the perpetrator. 51. The Appellant’s defence was at best an afterthought as he alleged a frame up by PW3 due to a disagreement over land yet the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 shows that they did not know the Appellant prior to the incident and only got to know about him after his apprehension. Further the victim and the Appellant were apprehended at his residence. The evidence by the Respondent’s witnesses leaves no doubt that the Appellant is the one who caused penetration of the Complainant. The Appellant was recognized by the complainant and was duly identified by PW3 and the arresting officer wherefore the Respondent had met the threshold as established in Republic Vs. Turnbull’s case. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18299/eng@2025-11-14 8

page 8 of 10

52. It is also accepted in law that evidence of recognition is stronger than that of identification because recognition of someone known to one is more reliable and assuring than the identification of a stranger (see Anjononi & Others v Republic [1980] KLR 59). 53. On the ground of appeal regarding inconsistencies and contradictions, the general rule as regards to the effect of the discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses is dependent upon the nature of the discrepancies; whether or not the discrepancies are trifling, substantial or deliberate and the degree of prejudice that they occasion the defence. See Law of Evidence (10th Ed) Vol. 1 at 46. 54. As was noted in Twehangane Alfred vs. Uganda, Crim App. No. 139 of 2001, [2003] UGCA, 6: “ With regard to contradictions in the prosecution’s case the law as set out in numerous authorities is that grave contradictions unless satisfactorily explained will usually but not necessarily lead to the evidence of a witness being rejected. The court will ignore minor contradictions unless the court thinks that they point to deliberate untruthfulness or if they do not affect the main substance of the prosecution’s case.” 55. Also, In Joseph Maina Mwangi vs. Republic CA No. 73 of 1992 (Nairobi) Tunoi, Lakha & Bosire JJA held: “ In any trial there are bound to be discrepancies. An appellate court in considering those discrepancies must be guided by the wording of Section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code, viz whether such discrepancies are so fundamental as to cause prejudice to the Appellant or they are inconsequential to the conviction and sentence.” 56. Where there are differences in the narration of events by the Respondent witnesses, especially as to recounting or recollecting the dates of the events, which are mere discrepancies that would not avail any injustice on the accused person, the court will not rule in favour of the defence because some of such discrepancies are expected as being natural (The State vs. Sunday Dio Dogo (Alias Sunday Idogo) HSO/3C/2012, Oboh J in the High Court of Nigeria). It was therefore held in Njuki vs. Rep 2002 1 KLR 77, that: “ In certain criminal cases, particularly those which involve many witnesses, discrepancies are in many instances inevitable. About what is important is whether the discrepancies are of such a nature as would create a doubt as to the guilt of the accused… however, where discrepancies in the evidence do not affect an otherwise proved case against the accused, a court is entitled to overlook those discrepancies and proceed to convict the accused”. 57. The manner of dealing with discrepancies and inconsistencies was stated in Dickson Elia Nsamba Shapwata & Another vs. The Republic, Cr. App. No. 92 of 2007 where the Court of Appeal of Tanzania concluded that: “ In evaluating discrepancies, contradictions and omissions, it is undesirable for a court to pick out sentences and consider them in isolation from the rest of the statements. The Court has to decide whether inconsistencies and contradictions are minor, or whether they go to the root of the matter.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18299/eng@2025-11-14 9

page 9 of 10

58. In this appeal I find the contradictions in the Respondent’s case, if any, did not affect the weight of it’s case and the same is curable under Section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides as follows: “ Subject to the provisions hereinabove contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account of an error, omission, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgement or other proceedings under this code, unless the error, omission, irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice.” 59. Accordingly, I find that the elements of defilement namely, identification, penetration and minority age of the Complainant were proved beyond doubt. The trial Court’s conviction was therefore proper. I am hereby obliged to correct the error and convict him of the main count. He is therefore found guilty of the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8 (1) as read with Section 8 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act No.3 of 2006. b. Whether the sentence meted upon the Appellant was appropriate 60. Under Section 8 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act, a person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of Twelve (12) and Fifteen years (15) is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than Twenty (20) years. 61. The Complainant herein was found to be aged 13 years old and hence the sentence imposed fell within the age bracket. It is noted that the trial Court duly considered the Appellant’s mitigation before sentencing him. I find the sentence to be the possible minimum in law. There is evidence that the Appellant was released on bond pending trial as the Court proceedings of 26th February 2020, indicate that his bond terms were cancelled immediately after his conviction. 62. In the result, this appeal against conviction and sentence lacks merit and the same is dismissed. I hereby uphold both the conviction and sentence. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, SIGNED AND DATED AT BUNGOMA THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. M.S.SHARIFF JUDGE In the presence of: Appellant M/S Kibet for Respondent Peter Machoni Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18299/eng@2025-11-14 10

page 10 of 10