Isaac Kipngetich Bett alias Karedio, Jackson Cheruiyot Koskei alias Ndashara & Joshua Maranga Makori alias Bonny v Republic
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld three robbery-with-violence convictions and death sentences, confirming that unexplained possession of stolen property and DNA evidence can prove guilt.
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 circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution irresistibly pointed to the appellants as the offenders
- 2.Whether the doctrine of recent possession was properly applied to sustain the convictions
- 3.Whether the two courts below failed to properly evaluate the evidence
- 4.Whether this Court can interfere with the sentence of death imposed
Key legal issues
#Application of the doctrine of recent possession to the 1st and 2nd appellants
The doctrine was properly applied: stolen property was positively identified as the deceased's, found in the appellants' possession shortly after the robbery, and neither offered any explanation
The court applied the thresholds in Lubanga: possession of the stolen items, positive identification as the complainant's property, independent verification of theft, and a short time frame. The 1st appellant was found with the deceased's items four days after the robbery, with Safaricom data showing his SIM card in the stolen phone; the 2nd appellant was found with the CD player 40 days later. Neither gave a plausible account, so the presumption of fact justified conviction.
DNA evidence against the 3rd appellant
DNA matching of the deceased's blood on the 3rd appellant's trouser was exceptionally high-value circumstantial evidence which the appellant failed to rebut
Relying on Musimbi, the court held that a conclusive DNA profile matching the deceased triggers a critical shift in the evidential burden, requiring the suspect to provide a credible alternative explanation. The 3rd appellant offered no explanation as to how the deceased's blood came to be on his trouser, so the only reasonable inference was that it was stained in the course of the robbery and/or murder.
Whether the High Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence as a first appellate court
The ground failed; the High Court judgment properly accounted for all the material evidence tendered
The court reiterated that a judgment need not be an exhaustive transcript of every word or defence raised; it satisfies fairness requirements if it accurately captures all material evidence and submissions. The High Court's reasoning and findings were supported by the evidence on record, so the ground collapsed.
Sentence
The death sentence is lawful and cannot be disturbed on second appeal
Following Muruatetu as clarified in the 2021 sentencing re-hearing, the mandatory application of the death penalty was outlawed but the death sentence survives as a discretionary maximum. Since it is the sentence provided by law for robbery with violence, the Court cannot alter or review its severity on a second appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A second appeal is confined to matters of law and this Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless based on no evidence
- The doctrine of recent possession is a component of the ordinary rules governing circumstantial evidence, not an independent rule of law
- A judgment need not be a verbatim transcript of all evidence; it suffices that it captures all material evidence and submissions
- A second appeal court cannot alter a sentence that is legally provided for under the law
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed in its entirety on both conviction and sentence
- 2.The convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court are affirmed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kericho
- Consolidated CRA Nos. 40, 41 & 42 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code (second appeal confined to matters of law)
Relief refused
#Quashing of convictions
Concurrent findings of the two courts below were supported by compelling evidence
Setting aside of sentences
Death is the sentence provided by law and a second appeal court cannot alter a legally provided sentence
Setting the appellants at liberty
Appeal failed on conviction and sentence
Costs
No costs order was 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.
A second appeal must be confined to points of law and this Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the two courts below unless such findings are based on no evidence.
the doctrine of recent possession is not an independent rule of law, but rather a specific component and application of the ordinary rules governing circumstantial evidence.
The upshot of the foregoing is that this appeal fails both on conviction and sentence and it is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
Dated and delivered at Nakuru this 2nd day of October, 2026.
we cannot in the circumstances of this case interfere with the lawful sentence imposed on the appellants.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting High Court appeal numbers: narrative says 2011, header says 2021
Memorandum of appeal dated 11th July 2026 though appeal filed in 2023
Typographical error in the judgment text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Isaac Kipngetich Bett alias Karedio, Jackson Cheruiyot Koskei alias Ndashara & Joshua Maranga Makori alias Bonny v Republic", Case Analysis (2026). Criminal Appeal No. NAK E013 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2011/eng@2026-10-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.