Court upholds death sentence for Maralal robbery convict

“I have nothing to say.” That was the response of James Lebite when given a chance to plead for mercy before a court after being conviction for a capital offence and sentenced to death.

Now, the Court of Appeal has affirmed his death sentence imposed by a magistrate in Maralal in 2016 for robbery with violence.

Lebite's appeal at the High Court was rejected in 2017.

Three appellate judges have now sealed Lebite’s fate, holding that the sentence was lawful despite the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision that struck down the mandatory nature of such a sentence.

“He was sentenced to death, a sentence that was upheld on first appeal. As per the threshold of the Supreme Court, that was a lawful sentence. We find the appeal to have no merit and we dismiss it,” the appeal decision reads, dated October 31, 2025.

Lebite and another man were charged with violently robbing a resident in Maralal.

The prosecution told the court that the two, while armed, attacked the victim and stole valuables before fleeing.

The co-accused was later acquitted, but the trial court found sufficient evidence linking Lebite to the offence.

During sentencing, the trial magistrate gave him an opportunity to plead for leniency. Lebite declined to speak, simply stating: “I have nothing to say.”

He later appealed to the High Court, which re-examined the evidence and upheld both the conviction and sentence inNovember 2017.

Lebite then proceeded to the Court of Appeal, challenging only the sentence. His argument was that the death penalty was imposed mandatorily and without giving the court discretion to consider other forms of punishment.

The appellate judges rejected the argument, saying the trial court had complied with the law and that the sentence was lawfully imposed after the accused was given an opportunity to mitigate.

They noted that the Supreme Court’s earlier decision declaring the mandatory nature of the death penalty unconstitutional did not abolish the sentence itself. Courts, they said, still retained discretion to impose it where justified.

The judges said both the Maralal magistrate and the High Court acted within the law and followed due process.

“The appellant was sentenced to death, and the sentence was upheld on first appeal. As per the threshold of the Supreme Court, that was a lawful sentence. We find the appeal to have no merit and we dismiss it,” the ruling stated.

The court also observed that although the Supreme Court had directed the government to establish a framework for reviewing other offences carrying mandatory penalties, no such system had yet been put in place.

With that observation, the Court of Appeal dismissed the case, confirming that the death sentence remained valid.