JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1. Titus Muindi Mukoma (the appellant) has preferred this second appeal against his conviction for the offence of robbery with violence. As far as this appeal is concerned, we have no jurisdiction to entertain matters of fact by dint of Section 361 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In Karani v. R [2010] 1 KLR 73 this Court expressed:
“This is a second appeal. By dint of the provisions of section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code, we are enjoined to consider only matters of law. We cannot interfere with the decision of the superior court on facts unless it is demonstrated that the trial court and the first appellate court considered matters they ought not to have considered or that they failed to consider matters they should have considered or that looking at the evidence as a whole they were plainly wrong in their decision, in which case such omission or commission would be treated as matters of law. Whether Betty and Chege were credible witnesses are matter…