Anyere v Republic
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that the death penalty remains the mandatory sentence for robbery with violence, despite the Muruatetu decision.
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 sentence of death imposed under section 296(2) of the Penal Code was lawful in light of Muruatetu
Key legal issues
#Whether the death sentence for robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code was lawful after Muruatetu
The sentence was lawful. Muruatetu 2 confined the unconstitutionality of the mandatory death sentence to murder under section 204; the death penalty for robbery with violence remains prescribed, so the trial court and High Court imposed the only lawful sentence and this Court cannot interfere.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's directions in Muruatetu 2, which clarified that the 2017 declaration struck down only the mandatory death sentence under section 204 (murder). It did not disturb the validity of the death sentence under article 26(3) of the Constitution or its prescription for other capital offences such as robbery with violence under section 296(2). Accordingly there was no error of law in the concurrent findings on sentence.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction is confined to matters of law only under section 361(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and it will not interfere with concurrent findings of the two courts below absent error of law.
- Following Muruatetu 2, the declaration of unconstitutionality of the mandatory death sentence applies only to murder under section 204 of the Penal Code; the death penalty for robbery with violence under section 296(2) remains lawful and an appellate court has no jurisdiction to interfere with a sentence imposed under it.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal against sentence dismissed
- 2.Death sentence imposed under section 296(2) of the Penal Code upheld
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kakamega
- HCCRA No. 166 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 361(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code - second appeal on matters of law only
Relief refused
#Resentencing to a non-custodial or lesser sentence having regard to mitigation and the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines (2016)
The death penalty under section 296(2) remains the only lawful sentence for robbery with violence per Muruatetu 2; the courts below imposed the only lawful sentence available
Costs
No costs order made 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.
In respect of robbery with violence under section 296(2), the Court expressly held that the death penalty remains the only sentence prescribed in law.
Accordingly, the trial court and the High Court imposed the only lawful sentence available, and this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with it.
Indeed, the appellant’s sentence was lawful and we uphold it. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
Issues in the judgment
#Tension between characterisation of s.296(2) penalty as discretionary maximum and as the only prescribed sentence
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anyere v Republic", Case Analysis (2025). Criminal Appeal 74 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2276/eng@2025-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.