Mwangi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E013 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 18090 (KLR) (Crim) (3 December 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEHC 18090 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Criminal Appeal E013 of 2025
KW Kiarie, J
December 3, 2025
Between
Isaac Mureithi Mwangi
Appellant
and
Republic
Respondent
(From the original conviction and sentence in S.O. Case No. E090 of 2022 of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Engineer by Hon. E. Wanjala, Principal Magistrate)
Judgment
1.Isaac Mureithi Mwangi, the appellant herein, was convicted of the offence of defilement contrary to section 8 (1) as read with section 8 (4) of the Sexual Offences Act No.3 of 2006.
2.The particulars of the offence were that in May 2022, at [Particulars Withheld], Kipipiri Sub-County within Nyandarua County, intentionally and unlawfully caused his penis to penetrate the vagina of GWM, a child aged seventeen years.
3.The appellant was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment and has appealed against both his conviction and sentence. He raised the following grounds of appeal:a.The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the appellant, but failed to note that the age of the complainant was not conclusively proved.b.The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the appellant, but failed to note that either identification or recognition did not prove the identification of the assailant.c.The learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the appellant, but failed to note that the penetration of the complainant was not conclusively proved.
4.The state opposed the appeal through M/s Odera Vena, learned counsel, on the following grounds that the offence was proved to the required standards.
5.This is the first appellate court. As expected, I have analyzed and evaluated all the evidence adduced before the lower court. I have concluded, considering I neither saw nor heard any witnesses. I will be guided by the celebrated case of Okeno vs the Republic [1972] EA 32.
6.I have perused the record and established that the learned trial magistrate erred in allowing PC Andrew Wekesa (PW4) to adduce evidence of confession. This was in breach of section 25A (1) of the Evidence Act, which provides as follows:The second error I have noted is that the learned trial magistrate allowed the appellant to be cross-examined over another case. Section 57(1) of the Evidence Act provides:
7.The appellant was prejudiced, and this was a derogation from Article 50 of the Constitution, which provides for a fair trial. This, therefore, amounted to a mistrial. The Black's Law Dictionary 10th Edition defines mistrial:
8.The conviction is quashed and the sentence set aside. The appellant is to be taken to the Engineer Law Courts within 14 days of this judgment, for retrial before another magistrate other than Hon. E. Wanjala, Principal Magistrate.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NYANDARUA, THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025KIARIE WAWERU KIARIEJUDGE