SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Makan v Republic (Criminal Appeal E124 of 2020) [2025] KECA 2273 (KLR) (19 December 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KECA 2273 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
2273
Citation
[2025] KECA 2273 (KLR)
Decided
19 December 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCriminal AppealPostureAppeal on sentenceCoramLK KIMARU, HA OMONDI, ASIKE-MAKHANDIA
Holding

The sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment was manifestly excessive and is set aside. The appellant is set at liberty with a sentence equivalent to the term already served.

Facts

The appellant, Amos Kibet Makan, was charged with murder for killing EKK on January 23, 2017. The prosecution alleged that the appellant hit the deceased with a stone, causing fatal injuries. The appellant denied the charges and claimed he was provoked.

Issues

  1. Whether the sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment was excessive in light of the circumstances of the case and the mitigating factors presented.
  2. Whether the trial court applied correct sentencing principles and failed to balance the gravity of the offense and the offender's personal circumstances.

Reasoning

The trial court failed to adequately consider the mitigating circumstances and the context of the offense. The appellant was a first offender, aged 27, remorseful, and an orphan.

Outcome

Appeal allowed, sentence set aside, and appellant set at liberty.

Orders

  • Set aside the sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment.
  • Substitute a sentence equivalent to the term already served.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Penal Code
Cases cited (2)
  • Bonaya Tutu Ipu & Another v Republic
  • John Onyango Obala v Republic
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case