Macdonald Makasi & Another v Republic [1994] KECA 31 (KLR)
The bottom line
#In Kenya, if you plead guilty in a criminal case, you generally lose the right to appeal your conviction, though you can still challenge the sentence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellants, having pleaded guilty, had a right of appeal against conviction
- 2.Whether the High Court properly summarily rejected the appeal against sentence under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- 3.Whether the sentences of 7 years imprisonment, 10 strokes of the cane and 5 years police supervision were harsh and excessive
Key legal issues
#Right of appeal against conviction following a plea of guilty
No right of appeal against conviction exists where the accused admitted the offence and the facts before conviction; the Court of Appeal cannot consider complaints against conviction in such circumstances.
The appellants pleaded guilty to robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code and admitted the prosecution facts before conviction was entered. A plea of guilty extinguishes the right to challenge conviction on appeal, and even the Superior Court on first appeal would have had no power to entertain complaints on conviction. Those complaints were therefore disregarded and rejected as a matter of law rather than on their merits.
Adequacy of sentence and summary rejection under section 352(2) CPC
Sentences of 7 years imprisonment, 10 strokes of the cane and 5 years police supervision for robbery under section 296(1) were lenient relative to the 14-year maximum with up to 28 strokes, so summary rejection of the sentence appeal was proper.
Section 296(1) of the Penal Code prescribes a maximum of 14 years imprisonment plus corporal punishment not exceeding 28 strokes. The trial Magistrate's sentences fell well below those maxima, making the appellants' claim of harshness baseless. It followed logically that the High Court's summary rejection under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was proper and had to be upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Legal principles established
#- An accused who is convicted on his own plea of guilty, having admitted the offence and the facts, has no right of appeal against conviction; appellate courts have no power to entertain complaints against such a conviction.
- A summary rejection of an appeal against sentence under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is proper where the sentence imposed is within, and indeed below, the statutory maximum.
Court orders
#- 1.The complaints against conviction rejected as the appellants had no right of appeal against conviction after pleading guilty
- 2.The summary rejection of the appeal by the Superior Court upheld
- 3.The appeal dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- H.C.CR.A. No. 215 of 1992
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code (section 352(2) summary rejection of first appeal against sentence in issue)
Relief refused
#Appeal against conviction
The appellants pleaded guilty and admitted the facts, so they had no right of appeal against conviction
Complaint that the sentence was harsh and excessive
The sentences imposed were lenient compared to the maximum penalty for robbery under section 296(1)
Costs
No costs order recorded in the judgment
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Having admitted the offence and the facts as stated by the prosecution before a conviction was entered, the appellants had no right of appeal against conviction.
From what we have said, it must follow that the summary rejection was proper and we accordingly uphold it. In the result this appeal fails and it is dismissed.
Robbery under section 296(1) carries a maximum sentence of 14 years together with corporal punishment not exceeding 28 strokes.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Macdonald Makasi & Another v Republic [1994] KECA 31 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1994). Criminal Appeal 66 of 1994. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1994/31/eng@1994-09-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.