Edwin Thairu Njoroge v Republic

7. The Appellant submitted that there was no corroborative evidence to support Prosecution’s allegations against the Appellant 8. The Appellant stated that the Prosecution’s case was marred by material contradictions and inconsistencies on record which were so central to establishment of the burden of proof and the legal burden which was not met herein. 9. The Appellant stated the Trial Court did not properly weigh and consider the defense case in light of totality of the whole evidence which reasonably exonerated the Appellant from any wrong doing. Trial Court Proceedings 10. PW 1 NO. 76291 PC Stanley Mwaniki Adult Sworn In Kiswahili PW1 served at Parklands Police and did traffic duties. On 4/10/2023 he was on duty at Sarit Roundabout 1830 hours. He stopped a vehicle to allow others to access the roundabout. The vehicle registration was number KBV 605Q Matatu-Wasana Sacco. The vehicle overlapped over the vehicles. PW1stopped the vehicle. PW1told the driver to take vehicle to police station. PW1was inside the vehicle the driver drove to General Mathenge Road. PW1 was seated Infront. He thought he had been kidnapped they started struggling. The driver parked beside the road and hit him with an iron bar. He came to passenger side pulled him out. PW1 fell outside the vehicle on the ground. He hit him with an iron bar in Court. 11. They stole the police radio call. Then he drove away. PW1was injured on the head and nose. He was bleeding profusely. His colleague who was at roundabout came. PW1 was with PC Njoroge. He came and helped him up. PW1 called CT Chebet she asked him to report and go for treatment. He was taken to Avenue Hospital. He was treated and discharged. Medical report- MFI 3. He went to police again he was given P3 Form- MFI 4. The injuries were grievous harm. Iron Rod-MFI 1. Communication gadget -MFI 2. 12. The DCI did investigations. The report of 5/10/2023 the accused was arrested he was able to identify him. He said he had thrown the radio in the toilet. The following day police went for recovery. He was not present at recovery. 13. PW2 NO. 54002 PC Thomas Njoroge Adult Sworn In Kiswahili He served at Parkland Police and did traffic duties. On 4/10/2024 he was on duty at Naivas Stage. He had controlled jam at Sarit Centre. He was informed by members of public that his colleague was down he had been injured. He ran to the place along General Mathenge Road. He took him. He was bleeding. He took him to the Police Station and reported and then took him to hospital-Avenue Hospital. The vehicle had left the place he noted. The vehicle KBV 605Q I run the plate and it was matatu for Transcend Sacco. 5. PW 3 Kamau Manga Adult Sworn In English He was from Central Police as a doctor. He had degree in Medicine and surgery was registered in registration in A13012. He presented the P3 Form produced it as evidence. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11892/eng@2026-07-23 2

page 2 of 10

The victim was/is Stanley Mwaniki Chege, the P3 Form dated 10/10/2023. He approached him with history of assault and had a neck that had fracture of the cervical bone, left shoulder tendon, injuries were one day old but he attended at Avenue Hospital 4/10/2023. It was assessed as grievous harm. 6. PW4: Mwaidi Mulingo Kitandi Adult Sworn In English He was a Medical Doctor at Avenue Hospital Parklands for 10 years Accident and Emergency Department. Bachelor degree Medicine from UON. 7. On 4/10/2023 he attended to a patient at 8:44 P.M. He had been assaulted while on duty. He was called Stanley Mwaniki Chege. He had been hit with metal bar on the nose. He bled, on examination he had blood-stained clothes, his vitals were stable. He had blood in nasal passage, bleeding gum, and loose teeth. The rest of the body was one with tenderness of left shoulder. He referred him to take a CT Scan of cervical spine and to a see a dentist too. He was unable to do that due to financial constraints. He gave him and colleagues referral letter and filled Police Surgeon Form. He produced it as evidence in Court. 7. PW 5 NO. 113070 PC. Sammy Shomalla Adult Sworn In English He served at DCI Parklands Police. He investigated a case of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) PC. It was reported to DCI Parklands OB82/4/10/23. The case was reported by PC Chege of Traffic Department Parklands Police. He stated that he was on normal traffic duties at Sarit. He spotted a vehicle KBV 605Q Matatu which is C/O Transcend Sacco being driver in undesignated end of road about causing obstruction. The Complainant stopped the vehicle asked the driver to pull off the road. The accused who was driving complied. The traffic officer entered the vehicle asked the accused to drive to the Police Station. The driver refused to comply and drove to General Mathenge. He stopped ahead and together with conductor hit the complainant using an iron bar, pulled him out, beat him and took away the official police communication gadget. They left the Complainant in the ground injured, drove away leaving him alone. The Police Officer who rescued the colleague took him to station. He was taken to Avenue Hospital, a report was done, P3 was filled. 7. He arrested the accused in Gachie driving the same vehicle. He escorted him to Parklands Police, search was conducted in the vehicle an iron bar was retrieved, the Complainant fully identified it. (Exhibit 1). They prepared an inventory, there was a license of the accused (Exhibit 5 and 6). 8. He interviewed the accused then he led him to Gachie in Pit latrine where he had thrown the gadget in a pit latrine. PW5 was with 4 colleagues and CSI Personnel from Kabete. They were assisted by Kabete Fire Brigade Team. The scene was documented and photos were presented before court (Exhibit 2) He produced report and photos as he wrote a letter to request the Communications Officer by letter dated 17/10/2023 to find out if the gadget was the property of National Police Service and if it was serviceable. They replied in 18/10/2023 stating that the gadget belonged to NPS- Parklands Police. The gadget was 864106020014619 was issued to No. 76291 PC Stanley Chege Parklands -Traffic in 19/10/2022 in good working condition. The gadget was not serviceable. He produced the letters as exhibits (9 and 10). Having all exhibits he went ahead and charged accused with offence in Court. He is the accused in court today. At the close of the Prosecution case; the Trial Court delivered Ruling on Case to Answer on 22/8/2024. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11892/eng@2026-07-23 3

page 3 of 10

Defence Case: Adult Sworn In Kiswahili** 7. Edwin Thiru Njoroge stated he lives in Kabete. He did mention that he did not know why he was in Court. On 4/10/2023, he went to work it was at 6:00 P.M. a police officer came and stopped him. This was the 5th time he was getting into Nairobi and he would take the usual 100/= but he refused. He told him to put the vehicle aside. He removed the passenger infront and entered. The driver gave the passenger his load and he alighted and remained at the spot. 8. Then PC Chege told him to take the vehicle to the station. The passengers protested and they demanded for refund of fare. He alighted and pulled the officer out. He decided to leave the scene. He didn’t come back. At 8:00 P.M he was called by the Sacco. He did not know what happened with passengers. He was informed the police officer had been beaten. He was arrested because he knew the Registration No of the vehicle and Sacco. The following day he went to work at 5:00 P.M he was arrested by Police and placed in the boot and was taken to Parklands Police. 7. On 8/10/2023 he was taken to Kihara Gachie. He was in the boot of a tinted vehicle and was taken to Kihara. He found Fire Brigade. He was removed and taken to the toilet and photo was taken and the I/O Shomolla said the gadget had been found. He was to pay for the retrieval and he innocently paid. He was sent money in Mpesa and was taken back to Parklands and later charged. He was in Industrial Area from that day. He has many problems. He lost his job and he won’t be employed for 11 month he is just suffering. He had a patient who goes for dialysis he is the bread winner. He has children in school. He had not paid fees. He pleaded for leniency and probation. 8. The Trial Court delivered judgment on 8/11/2024 and convicted the Accused person on both Counts. The Accused person was sentenced to serve 15 years imprisonment in Count 1 and 6 months suspended sentence in Count 2. 9. Appellant’s Written Submissions Issues For Determination 1. If The Accused Persons Right Of Fair Trial Were Violated Every accused person has the right to fair trial, which includes the right –(l) to refuse to give selfincriminating evidence; (4) Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall be excluded of the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair, or would otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice. On page 26 of the Court proceeding the accused stated as follows; “on 8/10/2023 I was taken to Kihara Gachie, I was in boot of tinted vehicle and taken to Kihara. I found a fire brigade I was removed and taken to toilet and a photo was taken. I/O Shomolla said the gadget had been found, I was to pay for the retrieval. I did innocently pay I was sent money in Mpesa I was taken back to Parklands.” 16. If The Ingredients Of The Offence Were Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt Under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code and as elaborated in the case of Jeremiah Oloo Odira v Republic [2018] eKLR, the offence of robbery with violence is established only if one or more of the following elements are proved: 1. The offender is armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument; 2. The offender is in the company of one or more persons; https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11892/eng@2026-07-23 4

page 4 of 10

3. 17. The offender, at or immediately before or after the robbery, wounds, beats, strikes, or uses personal violence to any person. If There Were Material Contradictions And Inconsistencies “ Now contradiction means lack of agreement between two related facts. Evidence contradicts another piece of evidence when it says the opposite of what the other piece of evidence has stated and not where there a mere discrepancy in details between them. Two pieces of evidence contradict another when they are inconsistent in material fact while a discrepancy occurs where a piece of evidence stops of, or contains a little more than what the other piece says or contains.” 18. This question was well handled in the reasoning of the Court In Ajode v Republic the Court of Appeal held that before an identification parade is conducted, and for it to be properly conducted, a witness should be asked to give the description of the accused and the police should then arrange a fair identification parade. In John Mwangi Kamau v Republic the Court of Appeal held: - 30{2004} 2 KLR 81.31.{2014} e KLR. “ 15. Identification parades are meant to test the correctness of a witness’s identification of a suspect. 19. The complainant alleges to have been hit by the accused person while driving. On re-examination PW1 stated as follows; he hit me, I became confused while he was driving, I thought I had been kidnapped we started struggling. PW5 states as follows; “he stopped ahead and together with the conductor hit the complainant using an iron bar, pulled him out, beat him and took away the official communication gadget. 20. PW 3 states as follows up on cross-examination; he had several bone fracture. I didn’t carryout scan. PW4 states as follows; “I did refer him to CT Scan of cervical spine and see a dentist too. He was unable to do that due to financial constraints. It’s possible he had a fracture. I called for CT scan. It wasn’t done at Avenue Hospital From the medical evidence the assault by the blunt object was not proved. When the complainant was rescued was he taken to police station instead of being taken to the hospital. Respondent’s Submissions Issue For Determination 21. In a first appeal, the duty of the court was held in Okeno-V-Republic [1972]EA 32 and also in Mark Oiruri Mose-V-R (2013)eKLR that “ ……...The Court is duty bound to revisit the evidence tendered before the trial court afresh, evaluate it, analyze it and come to its own independent conclusion on the matter but always bearing in mind that the trial court had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and hearing them give evidence and give allowance for that.” 22. This being a first appellate court, it is obligated to reconsider the evidence on record and arrive on its own independent conclusion while bearing in mind that it did not have the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses when testifying. The issues for determination are whether the prosecution proved the offence if robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt and whether the sentence meted is appropriate to the offense in the circumstances. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11892/eng@2026-07-23 5

page 5 of 10

23. 24. The elements of Robbery with Violence were authoritatively set out in Oluoch-V-Republic [1985]KLR and further in Johana Ndungu-Vs-Republic CRA No. 116/1995(unreported) where the Court of Appeal held that the offence is established if any one of the following circumstances is proven;1. The offender was armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument; or 2. The offender was in the company of one or more other persons; or 3. Immediately before, during or immediately after the time of robbery, the offender wounded, beats, struck or used or threatened to use violence against any person. Proof of any one of these elements suffices to sustain a conviction under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code. Conclusion 25. The circumstance under which an appellate court may interfere with a decision of the trial court were set out in the case of Mbogo-Vs-Shah & Another (1968) EA 93, where the court stated as follows: “ I think it is well settled that this court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the inferior court unless it is satisfied that the decision is clearly wrong because it has misdirected itself or because it has acted in matters on which it should not have acted or because it as failed to take into consideration matters which it should have taken into account and consideration and in doing so arrived at a wrong conclusion.” 26. In light of the foregoing; Prosecution submitted that the conviction was safe, lawful and supported by overwhelming evidence. The Appellant’s defense amounted to a mere denial. It did not rebut the strong prosecution evidence linking him to the offence and therefore, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the sentence is not manifestly excessive, harsh and severe in light of the nature of the charges and the prosecution’s overwhelming evidence. Analysis & Determination 27. The Court considered the Trial Court proceedings culminating with the judgment; the Appellant’s memorandum of appeal and written submissions This Court is called upon to re-evaluate the evidence on record and conder the legal issues raised by Appellant with regard to conduct and finding of the Trial and the judgment. 28. Okeno vs. Republic [1972] EA 32 as follows:“ An Appellant on a first appeal is entitled to expect the evidence as a whole to be submitted to a fresh and exhaustive examination (Pandya vs. Republic (1957) EA. (336) and the appellate court’s own decision on the evidence. The first appellate court must itself weigh conflicting evidence and draw its own conclusion. (Shantilal M. Ruwala Vs. R. (1957) EA. 570). It is not the function of a first appellate court merely to scrutinize the evidence to see if there was some evidence to support the lower court’s finding and conclusion; it must make its own findings and draw its own conclusions. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11892/eng@2026-07-23 6

page 6 of 10

Only then can it decide whether the magistrate’s findings should be supported. In doing so, it should make allowance for the fact that the trial court has had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses.” 29. In criminal case the burden of proof solely rests with the Prosecution as stated in the celebrated case of H.L(E)Woolmington vs. DPP [1935] A.C 462 pp. 481. The standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Miller vs. Ministry of Pensions, [1947] 2 ALL ER 372 30. The Evidence Act succinctly provides Section 107; the burden of proof is on prosecution. Section 111 of the Act the burden of proof at times shifts only when the Accused /Defense has the burden of proving any fact especially within the knowledge of such person is upon him. 31. The Appellant challenged the trial on the following condensed grounds as per the Memorandum of Appeal; The Appellant was not accorded fair trial, ingredients of robbery were not proved no corroboration was availed of alleged robbery, there were contradictions and inconsistencies and burden and standard of proof were not executed. 32. The Appellant attributed lack of fair trial that he was coerced to sign an Inventory which he did not understand its contents as he was not given opportunity to read it before signing the Inventory. Secondly, as stated during his defense that he was transported in the boot of the car to a scene in Gachie and photos were taken and later he was coerced to pay for fire brigade and was released. These actions were contrary to Article 50 (2) (l) & (4) of Constitution that he was coerced to self incriminate himself through illegally obtained evidence. (l) to refuse to give self- incriminating evidence (4) Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair, or would otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice 33. The Trial Court record confirmed that the iron rod was retrieved in Accused person’s vehicle Reg KBV 605V upon arrest and later PW1 the victim identified as one used in causing him assault during the incident. The Police communication gadget was recovered from pit latrine where the Accused person led the I/O PW5 to retrieve and thereafter signed the Inventory and photographs were taken and produced before the Trial Court. This is the basis of lack of Fair Trial due to coercion in selfincrimination and reliance on illegally obtained evidence was used to prove the offence of robbery with violence. 34. In Mini Cabs & Tours Company Limited v Attorney General & 2 others (Petition 450 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 11207 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (16 June 2022) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 11207 (KLR) Where it was alleged that the; The DCI infringed on the right to silence and the right against adducing self-incriminating evidence by demanding production of documents of company by use of threats. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11892/eng@2026-07-23 7

page 7 of 10

The Court held; The mandate of the 3rd respondent bore its origin in the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Constitution) under Article 245. That Article established the command of the National Police Service. In line with article 245(8), Parliament enacted the National Police Service Act, 2011 which gave effect to the operations of the National Police Service. Section 24 of the Act provided the functions of the Police. Further under section 35 of the Act, the functions for the 3rd respondent whose office was established under section 28 of the Act were spelt out. An accused person’s right against self-incrimination constituted giving oral or documentary evidence that would be used against that person. That right essentially challenged the admissibility of the documents sought to be eventually admitted into evidence if the petitioner was charged. A look at the material placed before the court showed that the 3rd respondent did indeed direct the petitioner to issue a number of documents to aid in the investigations. The Respondents submitted; the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a case for the grant of any of the orders sought in the petition. In support counsel relied on the case of Susan Mumbi v Kefala Grebedhin (Nairobi HCCC No 332 of 1993) where it was held that whoever alleges a fact must prove it. 35. It is the law that whereas the Investigation arm and Prosecution arm are each independent in executing each their legal mandate; such investigations and/or prosecution must be in accordance with Constitutional and Statutory parameters. 36. In the instant case/appeal the Appellant raised the issue of coercion in submitting evidence on the recovery of Police Communication gadget from the pit latrine. The Trial Court record did not illuminate on the specific facts of self- incrimination and reliance on illegally obtained evidence during trial. PW5’s testimony was brief on investigations conducted and in cross examination the issue of how and where the gadget was retrieved was not contested in cross -examination. 37. The 1st time the issue arose was in Accused person’s defense where he stated he was taken to Gachie in the boot of the car he reached at the scene and was taken photographs and the I/O stated the gadget was found. The circumstances strongly suggest alleged frame-up not self-incriminating evidence that he was coerced as there was no evidence of who compelled him, threatened or coerced him; how was it done; did he succumb to the threats what did he disclose? What was the result of disclosure? 38. The issue of coercion is not borne out by evidence on record. PW5 testified that he interviewed the Accused person who led him to Gachie and the gadget was retrieved from Pit Latrine. The evidence was not contested in cross examination. There is no evidence of the I/O PW5 having met or known the Accused person before this incident to have any special interest or bias in coercing the Accused person. The recovery of gadget could not have been possible without Accused person’s direction and disclosure. The Accused person disclosed where the gadget was and took PW5 there after interrogation. The Accused person did not refuse to give the information where the gadget was. There are no details of nature of coercion in the Accused person’s cross examination of PW5 or in his defense and for now remains one person’s word against the other person’s word PW5. The allegation of coercion is not borne out by evidence and is raised for the 1st time on appeal, during trial the allegation was not brought up or even tested in cross-examination of PW5 the I/O or Accused person’s/ Appellant’s Defense as it was a sworn statement. 39. The law prevents use of evidence illegally obtained for example through compelling or coercing a suspect to divulge self -incriminating evidence c/s 49 & 50 of Constitution. PW5 said he interviewed https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11892/eng@2026-07-23 8

page 8 of 10

the Accused person who led them to Kihara Gachie and with help of Fire Brigade retrieved the Communication gadget from Pit Latrine. PW5 testified that he did a letter to request to Communications Officer dated17/10/2023 to find out if the gadget was property of National Police Service and if it was serviceable. They replied in 18/10/2023 stating that the gadget belonged to NPSParklands Police. The gadget was No 864106020014619 was issued to No. 76291 PC Stanley Chege Parklands -Traffic in 19/10/2022 in good working condition. 40. PW5 produced both letters that confirm the gadget at the time was issued to PW1.Even if it was not recovered as per testimony by Appellant that he was coerced, the evidence before the Trial Court confirmed the gadget existed was with PW1 and was lost, taken/stolen during the robbery. 41. The offence of robbery with violence was proved by evidence adduced on the following ingredients; In Oluoch –Vs – Republic [1985] KLR “ Robbery with violence is committed in any of the following circumstances: a) The offender is armed with any dangerous and offensive weapon or instrument; or b) The offender is in company with one or more person or persons; or c) At or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery the offender wounds, beats, strikes or uses other personal violence to any person ………” 42. PW 1 testified that the Accused person and conductor Njoroge were together when he was hit with an iron rod which was later recovered in the vehicle and later produced in Court as exhibit. PW1 was accosted by 2 people. The medical records of Pw3 & Pw4 confirmed Pw1 visiting hospital injured bleeding and was treated. Pw2 corroborated Pw1’s injuries as he was 1st at the scene and took Pw1 to hospital. The Complainant was injured during the ordeal. In the process, the Police Communication gadget was lost/stolen/taken away. 43. The Police Communication gadget was recovered through interrogation of the Accused person by Pw5 and he led them to the Pit latrine and help was sought and it was retrieved. The offence of robbery with violence in terms of any one of the ingredients of robbery highlighted above and is proved as per evidence on record. 44. The Accused was with the conductor, the iron rod was recovered from the car and identified by PW1 as was used to injure him and/or the Police Communication gadget was recovered through interrogation of the Appellant. Even without the retrieval of the gadget robbery with violence was/is proved by any / some or all ingredients as shown above. 45. With regard to the number of witnesses that provide direct evidence on commission of the offence it is upon the Prosecution to determine how many witnesses to call as long they establish a prima facie case. 46. Section 143 of the Evidence Act provides; ‘No particular number of witnesses shall, in the absence of any provision of law to the contrary, be required for the proof of any fact’. See; Samuel Kagiri Njuguna v Republic [2016] eKLR 47. All that the prosecution is required to do is to call such a number of witnesses as it thinks is sufficient to prove its case. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11892/eng@2026-07-23 9

page 9 of 10

48. In the case of Richard Munene –vs- Republic 2018 eKLR with regard to contradiction or inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witness ; the Court stated that; “ ……Contradictions, discrepancies and inconsistencies in evidence of a witness go to discredit that witness as being unreliable. Where contradictions, discrepancies and inconsistencies are proved, they must be resolved in favour of the accused. It is a settled principle of law however, that it is not every trifling contradiction or inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witness that will be fatal to its case. It is only when such inconsistencies or contradictions are substantial and fundamental to the main issues in question and thus necessarily creates some doubt in the mind of the trial court that an accused person will be entitled to benefit from it.” 49. The Appellant did not high light or pick out the areas of contradiction and inconsistencies during Trial and therefore this Court cannot consider and evaluate the probative value of the evidence contested as inconsistent and contradictory. The allegation that the CT scan was not done to confirm injuries is not fatal to proof that PW1 was injured, his evidence that he was hit on the nose and was bleeding is corroborated by PW2 who rushed to the scene; the P3 Form and Medical Report confirm PW1 was injured. 50. The Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt due to the following evidence on record. PW1 Victim Police Officer who was on official duty directing controlling traffic on the fateful day, stopped Accused person driving a matatu and he ordered him to drive to Police Station, instead the Accused person veered off to General Mathenge Road and accosted PW1 hit him with an iron rod, he fell out of the vehicle. He was in the company of Conductor called Njoroge. His colleague PW2 came to the scene found him injured and took him to Hospital. PW3 & PW4 testified and produced medical records confirming PW1 was injured on the nose and head and was bleeding. PW5 I/O investigated the matter retrieved the Police communication gadget produced the Inventory and photographs (the Court notes exhibits are not in the Trial Court File) I find the totality of evidence on Trial Court record proved the offences on record and the burden and standard of proof was discharged. 51. The Accused person’s defense did not cast doubt to the Prosecution case, it contained issues that even aggravated the matter. He stated he gave the Officer Ksh 100/- he refused. This was/is an offence committed by the Appellant. Secondly, he admitted in his Defense that he pulled PW1 Police Officer out of the vehicle and drove off. Later he was called by Sacco informed of PW1 having been beaten. The next day he was arrested. After 4 days he was driven to Gachie and there was Fire Brigade and gadget was found and photographs taken. Yet in his submissions he insinuates he was coerced and forced to sign the Inventory. His Defense amounts to inculpatory evidence; reinforces the Prosecution case. 52. Disposition 1. The Appeal is dismissed. JUDGMENT DELIVERED SIGNED & DATED IN OPEN COURT CRIMINAL DIVISION MILIMANI ON 23/7/2026 M.W.MUIGAI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11892/eng@2026-07-23 10

page 10 of 10