Ezekiel Oramat Sonkoy v Republic [2013] eKLR acquitted on the 2nd count under Section 215 Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant appealed to the High Court (Sitati, J) but the appeal was dismissed in the judgement delivered on 20th January, 2012. The appellant was dissatisfied by these findings and has appealed in this second appeal. Section 361 (1) (a) Criminal Procedure Code limits our jurisdiction in a second appeal such as this one. We are to consider and deal only with issues of law but not matters of fact. This position has been restated in the many decisions of this court such as M'Riungu v Republic [1983] KLR 455 where this court stated:“Where a right of appeal is confined to questions of law, an appellate court has loyalty to accept the findings of fact of the court(s) and resist the temptation to treat findings of fact as holdings of law or mixed findings of fact and law and it should not interfere with the decision of the trial or first appellate court unless it is apparent that on the evidence, no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion, which would be the same as holding that the decision is bad in law (Martin v Glyneed Distributors Ltd (t/a MBS Fastenings – The Times of March 30,1983). See also Kiarie v Republic [1984] KLR 739 and Chemagong v Republic [1984] KLR 611. What, then, are the issues the appellant has raised in this appeal calling for our consideration? In the home made amended Memorandum of Appeal which we allowed the appellant to urge 5 grounds of appeal are raised to wit:1. THAT both trial and 1st appellate court failed to observe that the charge sheet was defective. 2. THAT both the trial and 1st appellate courts failed to appreciate that no offence was committed on the 17th August 2010. 3. THAT both the trial and 1st appellate courts failed to observe that the case originated from no first report. 4. THAT the trial court errored in not observing and complying with section 19 statutory declaration act. 5. THAT the trial court errored (sic) in not observing and complying with article 50 (2) (j) of the constitution. The matter before the trial court was rather straight forward. S.L (PW1) narrated that she was 14 years old. On 17th August, 2010 she was at home in Transmara District when the appellant paid a visit. After a few minutes the appellant asked to leave and PW1 escorted him out. The appellant asked PW1 to accompany him to his home and PW1 readily agreed. They went to his home where they slept. It is not clear from the record whether they slept together in the same bed on this day. At any rate the next day the appellant asked and PW1 agreed to accompany him to Eldoret. She again readily agreed. They boarded a matatu where the appellant paid appropriate fares. On getting to Eldoret the two visited the appellants mother and also the appellants grandmother where they were welcomed. The visits took about 2 months. During this period, and in PW1s' own words:- http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 2/6