kehc-2026-13216

years’ imprisonment for burglary and two (2) years’ imprisonment for stealing. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Aggrieved by the sentence imposed, the appellant lodged the present appeal through a petition of appeal dated 20 th May 2025 in which he challenged the severity of the sentence and sought orders that the sentence imposed herein be ordered to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Nyamira MCCR E846 of 2023. 4. In his written submissions dated 09 th April 2026, the appellant stated that he was a first offender, remorseful, and an orphan who had endured difficult circumstances in life, and urged the court to allow the sentences in the two criminal cases to run concurrently. Respondent did not file any submissions. 5. Having considered the record of appeal, the petition of appeal and the appellant’s submissions, the following issues arise for determination: 1) Whether the plea of guilty was unequivocal. 2) Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was lawful and excessive. 3) Whether this court can order consolidation of Nyamira MCCR E864 of 2023 and E866

page 2 of 6

of 2023 or interfere with the manner in which the sentences are being served. 6. The law regarding pleas of guilty is now settled. Section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides: “No appeal shall be allowed in the case of an accused person who has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on that plea by a subordinate court, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.” 7. The Court of Appeal in Adan v Republic [1973] EA 445 laid down the procedure to be followed when recording a plea of guilty. The charge and every essential ingredient thereof must be explained to the accused in a language he understands, the accused’s own words recorded, the facts outlined by the prosecution, and the accused given an opportunity to dispute or explain the facts. 8. In the present case, the proceedings clearly show that the charge and every element thereof were explained to the appellant in Kiswahili language. The appellant responded, “It is true.” A plea of guilty was entered. The prosecution then narrated the facts in detail, including recovery of the stolen items from the appellant’s house. Upon the facts being read out, the appellant stated that the facts were correct.

page 3 of 6

9. Although the appellant contended in one of the grounds of appeal that he pleaded guilty without appreciating the consequences thereof, the record clearly demonstrates otherwise. The charge and its ingredients were explained to him in a language he understood, the facts were narrated in detail, and he expressly admitted them as correct. I am therefore satisfied that the plea was properly taken and was unequivocal. 10. Consequently, by virtue of section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appeal can only lie on sentence. 11. Sentencing is a matter that lies within the discretion of the trial court and an appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with such discretion unless it is shown that the sentence is illegal, founded on wrong principles, that the trial court considered irrelevant factors or failed to consider relevant factors, or that the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive in the circumstances. In Bernard Kimani Gacheru v Republic [2002] eKLR, the Court of Appeal reiterated that sentencing is pre-eminently within the discretion of the trial court and that an appellate court should not interfere unless the foregoing principles are established. 12. Section 304(2) of the Penal Code provides a maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment for burglary, while

page 4 of 6

section 279(b) provides for a maximum sentence of fourteen years’ imprisonment for stealing from a dwelling house or similar premises. The appellant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for burglary and two years’ imprisonment for stealing, the sentences to run concurrently. The sentence imposed was therefore well within the limits prescribed by law and I find no basis upon which this court can interfere with it. 13. The appellant has urged this court to consolidate Nyamira MCCR E864 of 2023 and E866 of 2023 and order the sentences therein to run concurrently. 14. From the material placed before this court, it is apparent that the appellant separately pleaded guilty in both criminal cases and was sentenced independently in each matter. The warrants of commitment annexed to the record show that in each case the trial court imposed separate sentences for burglary and stealing, which were ordered to run concurrently within each file. 15. The present appeal arises only from Nyamira MCCR E866 of 2023. The proceedings and judgment in Nyamira MCCR E864 of 2023 are not before this court for purposes of determining the legality, propriety or correctness of the sentence imposed therein. This court cannot therefore consolidate the two criminal cases at the appellate stage or

page 5 of 6

interfere with a sentence imposed in a separate criminal file that is not the subject of the present appeal. 16. In the end, I find that this appeal has no merit and it is dismissed. The conviction is upheld and the sentence affirmed. DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 2026 14th DAY OF WAMAE.T. W. CHERERE JUDGE Appearances Court Assistant Appellant For the DPP - Anita - Present - Mr. Chirchir (SADPP) May

page 6 of 6