Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCriminal Appeal E009 of 2023

Chege v Republic

Court of Appeal
11 December 2025
Mohamed Abdulahi WarsameMA WarsameJMJM MativoPGPM Gachoka
1,179 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that the famous Muruatetu ruling does not apply to robbery with violence, so the mandatory death sentence for that offence still stands.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant was convicted of robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code by the trial court on 10th February 2012 and sentenced to death. His first appeal to the High Court at Naivasha (Odero and Meoli, JJ.) was dismissed on 6th November 2015, with both conviction and sentence upheld. In this second appeal, counsel for the appellant confined the appeal to sentence only, arguing that the death sentence was harsh and unconstitutional on the strength of the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu, which he contended had declared mandatory minimum sentences unconstitutional. The respondent opposed, citing aggravating factors including the appellant's companionship with others, use of lethal weapons, actual violence, non-recovery of stolen property and lack of remorse. The Court of Appeal framed a single issue: whether the death sentence could stand in light of current jurisprudence. Relying on the Muruatetu Directions and the Supreme Court's clarification in Republic v Mwangi, the Court held that Muruatetu applied only to the mandatory death sentence for murder under Section 204 of the Penal Code and cannot be applied directly to other capital offences such as robbery with violence. The mandatory death sentence under Section 296(2) therefore remains valid, and a challenge to its constitutionality must be properly filed and argued before the High Court. The second appeal against sentence was dismissed and the death sentence affirmed. This judgment binds subordinate courts and High Courts in Nakuru's appellate region on the inapplicability of Muruatetu to robbery with violence absent a fresh constitutional challenge.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the sentence of death imposed on the appellant can stand in light of current jurisprudence

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code remains valid after Muruatetu

Holding

It remains valid; Muruatetu was confined to murder under Section 204 and cannot be applied directly to robbery with violence.

Reasoning

The court relied on the Supreme Court's Muruatetu Directions and its subsequent clarification in Republic v Mwangi, which held that the Muruatetu judgment referred only to Section 204 of the Penal Code and did not outlaw mandatory or minimum sentences in other statutes. Any challenge to the mandatory death penalty for other capital offences must be properly filed and argued before the High Court and escalated if necessary. Accordingly, the death sentence for robbery with violence stands.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Muruatetu applies only to the mandatory death sentence for murder under Section 204 of the Penal Code and does not extend to other capital offences including robbery with violence under Section 296(2).
  • A challenge to the constitutional validity of the mandatory death penalty for offences other than murder must be properly filed, presented and fully argued before the High Court and escalated if necessary.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal against sentence is dismissed
  2. 2.The sentence of death imposed by the trial court on 10th February 2012 and confirmed by the High Court on 6th November 2015 is affirmed

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

Mohamed Abdulahi Warsame
MA WarsameJA
Currently serving
majority
JM
majority
PG
majority
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Naivasha
HCCRA No. 7 of 2014
Jurisdiction invoked
Second appeal against sentence under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction over the High Court's decision on appeal from the trial court (Penal Code, Section 296(2) context)

Relief refused

#

Resentencing / setting aside of the death sentence

Muruatetu does not apply to robbery with violence; the mandatory death sentence under Section 296(2) remains valid

p. 3

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.

The mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence under Section 296(2) remains valid and there is no legal basis for this Court to interfere with the sentence imposed.
p. 3Validity of mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence
Muruatetu as it now stands cannot directly be applicable to those cases.
p. 2Scope of Muruatetu per the Muruatetu Directions
The appeal against sentence is hereby dismissed. The sentence of death imposed by the trial court on 10th February 2012 and confirmed by the High Court on 6th November 2015 is hereby affirmed.
p. 3Final orders - dismissal and affirmation of death sentence

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chege v Republic", Case Analysis (2025). Criminal Appeal E009 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2181/eng@2025-12-11

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.