Alex Mutinda Paul v Republic

6. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the Appellant has lodged the instant appeal against both the conviction and sentence. The Appellant’s undated Petition is signed by the Officer In-charge, Machakos Main Prison on 10/02/2024 which raises three grounds of appeal as follows:a. That the learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the Appellant when the vital elements of age and penetration were not proved to the required threshold. b. That, the learned trial magistrate erred in matters of law and fact by not considering the appellant's plausible defence. 7. The appeal was canvassed through written submissions. The Appellant’s submissions are dated 13th March 2026. The Respondent’s submissions are dated 11th February 2026. 8. The Appellant submits that the prosecution's case was marred by irreconcilable contradictions, particularly as to the date and circumstances of the alleged offence. Penetration, the essential element, was never proved beyond reasonable doubt, yet the trial court erroneously inferred guilt from nudity and uncorroborated testimony. Crucial witnesses were not called, requests to recall PW1 and PW2 were denied, and treatment notes vital to the defence were withheld. The Appellant contend that these omissions violated his fair trial rights under Article 50(2) of the Constitution. 9. He further submitted that the learned magistrate also failed to properly weigh the defence or apply Section 124 of the Evidence Act in assessing credibility. Ultimately, the prosecution did not discharge its burden, and the benefit of doubt ought to have been accorded to the Appellant. Even if conviction were sustainable, the custodial term of fifteen years was disproportionate, imposed without adequate regard to mitigating factors or principles of proportionality.The conviction was therefore unsafe. 10. On the other hand, the Respondent opposes the instant appeal and submits that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence and came to the right conclusion. That trial court was well within its jurisdiction and discretion to sentence the Appellant as it did. The sentence was within the law and thus legal. The Respondent urges this Court not to interfere with the sentence. The Respondent submits that the appeal lacks merit and ought to be dismissed in its entirety Analysis and Determination 11. This being the first appeal, this court is expected to re-evaluate the evidence tendered before the trial court and to come up to its own logical conclusion by taking into account the fact that it did not have the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and their evidence and/or see their demeanor. This court is guided by the Court of Appeal case of Okeno -vs- Republic (1972) EA 32 where it was stated as follows: “ An appellant is entitled to expect the evidence as a whole to be submitted to a fresh and exhaustive examination and to the Appellate court’s own decision on the evidence. The first appellate court must itself weigh conflicting evidence and draw its own conclusions. It is not the function of the first appellate court merely to scrutinize the evidence to see if there was some evidence to support the lower court’s findings and conclusions; it must make its own findings and conclusions. Only then can it decide whether the magistrate’s findings can be supported. In doing so, it should make an allowance for the fact that the trial court has had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses”. 12. Also, in Peter’s vs Sunday Post (1958) E.A. 424 it was said that it is not the function of the first appellant court merely to scrutinize the evidence to see if there was some evidence to support the lower courts finding and conclusion: it must make its own findings and draw its own conclusions. Only then can it https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10676/eng@2026-07-13 2

page 2 of 10

be decided whether the magistrate findings should be supported. In doing so it should make allowance for the fact that the trial court had the advantage of hearing and seeing witnesses. 13. In the case of Republic Vs Edward Kirui (2014) eKLR, the Court of Appeal quoted the Supreme Court of India Case of Murugan & Another Vs State by Prosecutor, Tamil Nadu & Another (2008) INSC 1688 where the case of Bhagwan Singh Vs State of M. P. (2002)4 SCC 85 was cited as follows:“ The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where the trial court has taken a view of ignoring the admissible evidence, a duty is cast upon the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on appeal for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether all or any of the accused has committed any offence or not.” 14. In the case of Mwangi vs Republic [2004] eKLR 28. It was held as follows: “ Any appellant on a first appeal is entitled to expect the evidence as a whole to be submitted to a fresh and exhaustive examination and to have the appellate courts own decision on the evidence” 15. Having subjected the evidence to fresh and exhaustive re-examination, considered the trial court’s judgement, the grounds of appeal and the submissions of the parties, I find the following as issues for determination; a. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt b. Whether the sentence should be reviewed a. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt 16. It is trite that all criminal offences require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Lord Denning in Miller.vs. Ministry of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER, 372 stated as follows: “ That degree is well settled. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence of course it is possible, but not in the least probable, the case is beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice.” 17. In this case, the Appellant was charged and sentenced for the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. 18. The offence of defilement is provided for under Section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act. Section 8(1) provides that: “ A person who commits an act which causes penetration with a child is guilty of an offence termed defilement”. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10676/eng@2026-07-13 3

page 3 of 10

19. To sustain a conviction for the offense of defilement, the prosecution has to prove three ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. This was set out in Charles Wamukoya Karani v Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2013. The Court in that case stated: “ The critical ingredients forming the offence of defilement are; age of the complainant, proof of penetration and positive identification of the assailant”. 20. Therefore, in order for the offence of defilement to be committed, the prosecution must prove each of the above ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. Did the prosecution discharge this task? 21. According to the Appellant the prosecution failed in this undertaking, whereas the Respondent is of a different view. i. Age of victim 22. The trial court noted that the complainant V.M.M was a minor of over 14 years hence there was no need for voire dire examination. The offence herein is alleged to have happened on 22/01/2023. PW1, the complainant/victim testified in court on 17/8/2023 and did not say anything about her age although she marked for identification as PMFI-3 the Birth Certificate which unfortunately I am unable to trace from the trail courts record and the proceedings do not show whether the same was ever produced later as an exhibit in the case. PW2, the complainant’s father and PW4, the complainant’s mother too did not say anything about their daughter/complainant’s age. 23. In the judgement, the trial court stated that the Charge Sheet placed the girl’s age at seventeen (17) years. The prosecution produced as PExh.3 a copy of the girl’s Certificate of Birth indicating that she was born on December 30, 2005. This therefore means that as at the time of alleged commission of the offence the girl was seventeen (17) years. One (1) month old and so the trial court found. 24. My keen and thorough perusal at the trial court’s record does not reveal whether PMFI.3, the Police Abstract was ever produced as an exhibit in the case. The trial record also shows that the Investigating Officer did not testify. Does a document marked for identification and not produced as an exhibit form part of the evidence on record? The answer is no as was held in the case of Kenneth Nyaga Mwige v Austin Kiguta & 2 Others [2008] KEHC 2938 (KLR), where the court held as follows: “ The mere marking of a document for identification does not dispense with the formal proof thereof. How does a document become part of the evidence for the case? Any document filed and/or marked for identification by either party, passes through three stages before it is held proved or disproved. First, when the document is filed, the document though on file does not became part of the judicial record. Second, when the documents are tendered or produced in evidence as an exhibit by either party and the court admits the documents in evidence, it becomes part of the judicial record of the case and constitutes evidence; mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof; admission of a document in evidence as an exhibit should not be confused with proof of the document. Third, the document becomes proved, not or disproved when the court applies its judicial mind to determine the relevance and veracity of the contents- this is at the final hearing of the case. When the court is called upon to examine the admissibility of a document, it concentrates only on the document. When called upon to form a judicial opinion whether a document has been proved or disproved or not proved, the court would look not at the document alone but it would take into consideration all facts and evidence on record…………. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10676/eng@2026-07-13 4

page 4 of 10

Once a document has been marked for identification, it must be proved. A witness must produce the document and tender it in evidence as an exhibit and lay foundation or its authenticity and relevance to the facts of the case. Once this foundation is laid, the witness must move the court to have the documents produced as an exhibit and be part of the court record. If the document is not marked as an exhibit, it is not part of the record. If admitted into evidence and not formally produced and proved, the document would be hearsay, untested and unauthenticated account. 25. In Basil Okaroni versus Republic [2016] eKLR the Court had this to say: “ We agree with the appellant that in Sexual Offences, ascertainment of the victim’s age is crucial and the court’s have underscored the necessity of this requirement." 26. In Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2010 Kaingu Alias Kasomo vs. Republic [1982] KLR 213, the Court of Appeal stated thus: “ Age of the victim of sexual assault under the Sexual Offences Act is a critical component. It forms part of the charge which must be proved the same way as penetration in the cases of rape and defilement. It is therefore essential that the same be proved by credible evidence for the sentence to be imposed will be dependent on the age of the victim” 27. Guided by the foregoing cited decisions, this court therefore finds that the trial magistrate was wrong to rely on a document that was never an exhibit before the trial court and erroneously found that the age of the complainant was proved. 28. In addition, the trial court’s proceedings at page 49 show that the court in a brief ruling stated that on 23/9/2024, the court stated that no further adjournments should be allowed. The court took note with a lot of sadness of police stations that come to court and damp files in court and are not interested in pursing the file. The trial court proceeded to mark the prosecution’s case as closed. 29. Undoubtedly, this court holds that the prosecution did not prove this crucial ingredient of agebeyond reasonable doubt. ii. 30. penetration On the ingredient for proof of penetration, penetration is defined under Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act as follows: “ The partial or complete insertion of the genital organs of a person into the genital organs of another person.” 31. 1 have considered the evidence tendered by the Prosecution witnesses as regards penetration in this case. The relevant evidence that touches on the alleged defilement is that of PW1, the complainant/ victim and that of PW3, the Doctor. 32. PW1 the complainant/victim testified that she could recall that on 11/01/2023 at about 1.00 a.m, the Appellant went to their home and she opened the door for him. After a few minutes, her father knocked on the door and the Appellant left and ran away. Before her father came, the Appellant had sex with her and inserted his penis into her vagina. When he ran away, he was caught and taken to the police station. PW1 further testified that she used to know the Appellant who was her boyfriend. He had been her boyfriend for a week. After the Appellant was arrested, she was taken to the police station. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10676/eng@2026-07-13 5

page 5 of 10

She was given a P3 that she took to hospital. The marked for identification the following documents: PMFI.1- P3 Form;PMFI.2- PRC FormPMFI.3- Birth CertificatePMFI.4(a) and (b)- Treatment notes PW1 identified the Appellant at the dock. 33. On cross-examination, PW1 stated that the Appellant went to her home at 1.00a.m and not 11.00p.m, that is what she wrote in her statement. She denied that the Appellant didn’t know her and that they had never met. She stated that the Appellant was caught at her home and denied that the Appellant was caught by neighbours. She stated that the Appellant brought himself to her home. He was arrested by police from Mwala who came for the Appellant on the road. That the Appellant was caught at her home and taken to the road. She denied that it was not true the Appellant had never had sex with her. She stated that she knew the Appellant and insisted that she had sex with him and nobody saw them. She didn’t know if the Appellant’s phone was taken on arrest. She confirmed that nobody saw them having sex. 34. PW4-Dr. George testified that the complainant went to Mwala Level 4 hospital when she had already changed clothes. PW4 relied on evidence filled in the PRC Form by a different physician. The complainant alleged to be defiled by a person well to her. On examination, PW1 had no injuries on the head, neck, thorax and abdomen, upper and lower limbs. The hymen was not intact but there were no injuries around the genitalia and the pelvis. The injuries occurred 2 days before. The most probable weapon was a penis. 35. The Lab findings are as follows:-HVS-No spermatozoa, but there were positive findings of pus cells and epithelial cellsUrine microscopy-pus cellsPregnancy test- NegativeUDRL- non-reactive- no syphilis 36. PW4 then produced PMFI.1 and PMFI.2 as Prosecution exhibits PExt.1 and PExt.2 respectively. 37. On cross-examination, PW4 stated that from the documents, he could not tell whether the complainant was a virgin or not. The truth was that the complainant had an affinity for sex on account of her age. 38. The trial court upon inquiring on the age of the Appellant, the Appellant answered that he was then nineteen (19) years old. 39. I have re-evaluated and re-analysed the evidence of PW1 and PW4. PW1 testified that on 11/1/2023 at 1.00a.m the Appellant went to their home and she opened the door for him. After a few minutes, her father PW2 knocked on the door. The Appellant left and ran away. Before PW2 came, the Appellant had sex with her and inserted his penis in her vagina. With this evidence, PW1 having not specified the few minutes the Appellant had been with her when she opened the door for him, this court can only be left wondering within what period could the Appellant have undressed and had sex with the complaint. Could all this have happened in just a few minutes, how few were the minutes? 40. Whereas the complainant also testified that the Appellant was caught at her home and denied that the Appellant was caught by neighbours, she again stated that he was arrested by police from Mwala who came for the Appellant on the road. That the Appellant was caught at her home and taken to the road but remained silent on who arrested the Appellant. 41. This court finds the testimony of the complainant to have been very casual and inconsistent. Her evidence does not add up. 42. Of much concern is the testimony of the complainant that the alleged offence occurred on 11/01/2023 whereas the Charge Sheet places the date of the offence on 22/01/2023, a variance of eleven (11) days. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10676/eng@2026-07-13 6

page 6 of 10

PW2, PW2 and PW4 testified that the alleged date of offence was on 22/01/2023.The defilement on the specific date of 22/1/2023 was not proved. The complainant did not also support the said date. 43. This court also finds the testimony of PW4 to be confusing and unreliable. Whereas he stated that the complainant’s hymen was not intact and he could not tell whether the complainant was a virgin or not, at the same time testifying that the complainant had an affinity for sex on account of her age. Which is which? 44. Section 124 of the Evidence Act provides that: “ Notwithstanding the provisions of section 19 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act (Cap. 15), where the evidence of the alleged victim is admitted in accordance with that section on behalf of the prosecution in proceedings against any person for an offence, the accused shall not be liable to be convicted on such evidence unless it is corroborated by other material evidence in support thereof implicating him: Provided that where in a criminal case involving a sexual offence, the only evidence is that of the alleged victim of the offence, the court shall receive the evidence of the alleged victim and proceed to convict the accused person if, for reasons to be recorded in the proceedings, the court is satisfied that the alleged victim is telling the truth.” 45. The complainant having insisted in her testimony that nobody saw her and the Appellant having sex on the alleged date she gives as 11/01/2023 and having not mentioned any other date she might have had sex with the Appellant, this court finds that the date given by PW2, PW3 and PW4 could not form a basis of charging the Appellant with the offence of defilement. 46. Further the Doctor, PW4 having testified that could not tell whether the complainant was a virgin or not, at the same time testifying that the complainant had an affinity for sex on account of her age, his evidence was twisted and not conclusive enough to corroborate the complainant’s evidence on defilement. 47. The trial court in its judgement, observed that the Appellant shot out of the complainant’s bedroom stark naked and that pointed to them having had sexual intercourse that very night. It was hard to imagine that he removed his clothes just to watch movies. This court is tempted to pause and ask itself how about if the Appellant, if it was proved that he was with complainant whether on 11/1/2023 or 22/1/2023 was just showing off his body to his girlfriend or was aimed at something else other than the conclusion that the nakedness was a pointer to them having had sex. I find that the trial court relied on suspicion to convict the Appellant. 48. It is trite that suspicions, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. In Sawe v R [2003] KLR 364, the Court of Appeal held that: - “suspicion, however strong, cannot provide the basis of inferring guilt which must be proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.”). For avoidance of doubt, on analysis of all the evidence presented, I found no concrete and credible evidence establishing that 49. In Republic v Joseph Thiongo Waweru & 17 Others [2019] KEHC 5645 (KLR), Justice Joel Ngugi (as he then was) held that rumours and speculations, however juicy and however widespread, like suspicions, do not at some point jell into factual evidence usable to establish prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. 50. This court therefore finds that the prosecution did not prove to the required standard that the Appellant penetrated and defiled the complainant herein. The evidence on penetration was not corroborated and therefore unsafe for the trial court to have relied upon to conclude that there was penetration and proof of defilement by the Appellant as charged. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10676/eng@2026-07-13 7

page 7 of 10

iii. 51. Positive identification of the assailant The ingredient of age and penetration above having not been proved, then automatically, proof of positive identification of the Appellant as the assailant equally fails. I will not belabour to determine the same. Violation of the Appellant’s right to fair trial 52. The Appellant has also faulted the trial court for violating the Appellant's right to a fair trial under Article 50(2)(k) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, by denying him his request to recall witnesses PW1 and PW2 for further cross-examination. The trial court’s record at page 58 of the proceedings shows that the prosecution closed its case without calling several material witnesses whose testimony would have been indispensable to the fair determination of the matter. 53. The arresting officers from Mwala were never summoned, thereby depriving the court of evidence regarding the circumstances of arrest, the condition of the Appellant at the time, and any contemporaneous observations they may have made. 54. The Appellant faults the prosecution for failure to call members of the public who allegedly apprehended the Appellant. PW2 testified that he screamed and "people responded to the screams" and that "people held him and brought him to his house". These people who allegedly apprehended the Appellant were never identified or called as witnesses in court. The Appellant believes that their testimony would have been vital in either corroborating or contradicting the prosecution's version of events. 55. The omission of the investigating officer to testify in the case is particularly glaring. No evidence was presented regarding the investigations conducted, the chain of custody of exhibits, or the results of any inquiries. Without such testimony, the court was left without a coherent narrative of how the case was pieced together. 56. The Chief and Sub-chief, who, according to PW2, played a role in the Appellant's apprehension, were also not called. As public officials, their testimony would have carried significant weight and lent credibility to the prosecution's account of what exactly transpired. Their absence was conspicuous and unexplained. 57. The principle established in Bukenya & Others v Uganda [19721 EA 549 is clear: where witnesses who would naturally be expected to corroborate the prosecution’s, case are not called without explanation, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference that their evidence would not have supported the prosecution. 58. Similarly, in Alora & Daltanyi v Reginam [1956] 23 EACA 49, the court held that the unexplained failure to call a material witness raises the presumption that such a witness was withheld because his evidence would have been unfavourable to the prosecution. 59. While Section 143 of the Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses is required, the failure to call any independent or corroborating witness in a case resting entirely on family members of the complainant is highly prejudicial. 60. PW3 herself admitted that "there is no one in the village willing to come to court and testify except their family members.". This damning admission suggests either that the surrounding community did not witness the events or does not support the prosecution's case. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10676/eng@2026-07-13 8

page 8 of 10

61. By closing its case without calling these essential witnesses, the prosecution effectively deprived the trial court of the opportunity to test the veracity of the complainant's family's testimony. The conviction thus rested solely on the evidence of the complainant and her parents, all of whom have an obvious interest in the outcome, rendering the verdict unsafe and unsustainable. 62. The record clearly shows that the Appellant, who was unrepresented, repeatedly requested that PW1 and PW2 be recalled for further cross-examination. At page 30 of the trial court’s proceedings, the Appellant is seen to have requested witnesses PW1 and PW2 to be recalled, claiming there were questions he had not asked them. 63. At page 35 of the trial court’s proceedings, the prosecution acknowledged the Appellant’s request and stated that the complainant had gone back to school. At page 39, the prosecution stated that PW1 was in school, and PW2 was unavailable, and prayed for adjournment to call the remaining witnesses "as they wait for schools to close”. 64. The record unmistakably reveals that, notwithstanding repeated entreaties and even the prosecution's concession of necessity, PW1 and PW2 were never recalled. The prosecution proceeded to close its case without facilitating their recall, thereby depriving the Appellant of the opportunity to subject their testimony to further scrutiny. 65. Embedded within Article 50(2)(k) of the Constitution is the guarantee that every person may "adduce and challenge evidence." This right is substantive, not ceremonial, and necessarily encompasses the ability to conduct meaningful cross-examination. The Court of Appeal observed in Simon Githaka Malombe v Republic [2015] eKLR, that effective cross-examination is "beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth." 66. The failure by the prosecution to recall the mentioned witnesses, despite the Appellant's express request, constituted a violation of his constitutional entitlement to a fair trial. Article 25(c) of the Constitution underscores that the right to a fair trial is non-derogeable. In Simon Ndichu Kahoro v Republic [2016] eKLR, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that this right cannot be curtailed under any circumstances. 67. The Appellant being unrepresented and thus particularly vulnerable to the intricacies of criminal procedure. It is entirely plausible that he did not fully appreciate the breadth of questions to pose during the initial cross examination. The right to recall witnesses assumes heightened importance for unrepresented accused persons, affording them a second opportunity to challenge evidence effectively where necessary. 68. Obligated as he was, the learned trial magistrate bore a duty to safeguard the Appellant's fair trial rights, especially given his unrepresented status. By ensuring that PW1 and PW2 were recalled, the court abdicated this duty, thereby undermining the integrity of the proceedings and rendering the conviction unsafe. 69. It is also curious and fatal that andessential documents including the Birth Certificateand treatment notes vital to the defence were withheld and not produced as exhibits. These omissions violated the Appellant's right to fair trial under Article 50(2) of the Constitution. 70. Finally, before I pen off, I wish to point out that this court has established that the alternative charge bore the name MULIMO MATHEKA and not the Appellant herein, this notwithstanding, the record shows that the Appellant had to plead to this alternative charge. This was wholly unlawful, improper and against the rules of natural justice. This created a defective charge sheet even though the Appellant was not convicted on the alternative charge. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10676/eng@2026-07-13 9

page 9 of 10

71. Accordingly, this court finds that the evidence of the trial court’s record failed to meet the required standard of proof in criminal cases. The essential ingredients of defilement were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. If there was anything between the Appellant who was said to be aged 19 years old and the complainant who was allegedly aged 17 years old, then clearly the circumstances raise the possibility that the Appellant and the complainant may have had a “Romeo and Juliet” relationship and that the alarm raised, and subsequent prosecution only arose when the complainant’s father interrupted. b. Whether the sentence should be reviewed 72. The Appellant was sentenced to serve 15 years imprisonment. The Appellant in mitigation stated that he was remorseful and prayed for forgiveness. 73. Section 8(1) are read with Section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act provides that: (l) A person who commits an act which causes penetration with a child is guilty of an offence termed defilement. (4) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the fifteen and seventeen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen years. 74. In Republic v Joshua Gichuki Mwangi SC Petition No. E018 of 2023, the Supreme Court of Kenya held that the minimum sentences in the Sexual Offences Act were constitutional and the courts are bound by the minimum mandatory sentences as provided for by law. Looking at the circumstances of this case, the sentence was legal and proper as prescribed by law. 75. Had the age of the minor been proved to be 17 years as shown in the charge sheet, the law provides that upon conviction; the imprisonment should be for a term not less than 15 years, I would have upheld the Appeal and affirmed the sentence since the same as imposed by the trial court is lawful. 76. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that the prosecution proved its case. Disposition 77. The upshot is that this appeal succeeds. The conviction is quashed. The sentence of fifteen (15) years is set aside. The Appellant is forthwith unconditionally set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held. 78. Orders accordingly. The file is closed. JUDGMENT WRITTEN, DATED & SIGNED AT MACHAKOS THIS 13TH JULY 2026 NOEL ADAGI JUDGE DELIVERED AT MACHAKOS VIA TEAMS THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 2026 In the presence of: Appellant in person at Kitengela GK Prison Ms. Agatha Abang for State Milly Grace -Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10676/eng@2026-07-13 10

page 10 of 10