A man convicted of grievously harming another during a violent altercation
in Marsabit has lost his appeal, after the High Court ruled that his guilty
plea was unequivocal and that his sentence was lawful.
Kamau Kamotho, the appellant in the case, was convicted on August 20, 2024,
for stabbing Adan Isaak in the face with a screwdriver during an incident in
Marsabit Township.
The violent attack on August 18, 2024, left Isaak with a fractured jaw.
Kamotho pleaded guilty to the offence, stating that “The facts are true. I
stabbed the complainant”, before the Marsabit Principal Magistrate.
He was sentenced to two years in prison.
However, he later filed an appeal at the High Court in Marsabit, seeking to
have both his conviction and sentence overturned.
In his petition, Kamotho argued that he had been unwell during the
plea-taking and that his mitigation was not fully considered.
Kamotho claimed he was attacked by a mob of about ten men, one of whom he
identified as “Hirbo.”
According to his submissions, he only acted in self-defence and had locked
himself in a room before being rescued by police.
He also alleged mistreatment while in custody, including being denied access
to medical treatment and being held unlawfully for three days before being
taken to court.
“I was unwell during plea taking,” Kamotho stated in his appeal, adding that
he was a person living with a disability and had not been afforded a fair
trial.
Despite these claims, Justice Francis Rayola of the High Court found that
the trial had been properly conducted and that Kamotho’s plea was clear and
voluntary.
“The Appellant fully understood and agreed that the charges and particulars
of the offence as read out to him were correct, and that is why he pleaded
guilty,” the judge said.
Kamotho had initially admitted to the charges, stating plainly, “The facts
are true. I stabbed the complainant.”
The charge and the facts were read out to him in Kiswahili, a language he
understood, and the P3 medical report presented by the prosecution confirmed
the injuries inflicted on the complainant.
Justice Rayola emphasised that while the law bars appeals against conviction
based on a guilty plea under Section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code, courts
are still allowed to examine whether such a plea was entered unequivocally.
“The plea of guilty by the Appellant was unequivocal,” he ruled.
“The prosecution counsel explained the facts to the appellant, and he
admitted they were true and reaffirmed that he stabbed the complainant.”
The judge dismissed Kamotho’s claim that he was unwell during plea taking as
a “new issue” that was not raised during the trial.
He noted that while it might be true that Kamotho had been attacked by a
crowd, that information only served as a mitigating factor and did not negate
his admission of guilt.
On sentencing, Justice Rayola found that the two-year prison term was lenient,
considering the seriousness of the offence.
Under Section 234 of the Penal Code, the maximum penalty for causing
grievous harm is life imprisonment.
“The Appellant was allowed to mitigate and was sentenced to serve a two-year imprisonment term. There is no error in the legality of the sentence
passed,” the court found.
In his ruling, the judge also cited past decisions that guide appellate
courts not to interfere with sentencing unless there is a “material
misdirection” or the sentence is “disturbingly inappropriate.”
He concluded that the trial magistrate had exercised discretion properly and
within the law.
With the appeal dismissed, Kamotho will continue to serve his sentence as imposed. He retains the right to appeal the decision within 14 days.
