[2002] KEHC 385 (KLR)
The court found that although the appellants committed robbery, the injuries inflicted on the complainant were classified as harm and were not of a serious nature. The amount of cash stolen was not substantial and was recovered immediately upon the appellants' arrest. Both appellants had no previous criminal records...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 385 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Albert Nandwa Ayoma; Appellant: Rose Musavi Matobe; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 631 & 691 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Conviction for robbery with violence substituted with conviction for simple robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code; death sentences set aside; appellants sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment from 12th June, 2000, plus two strokes for the first appellant.
- Judges
- VV Patel
- Legal Topics
- Robbery, Sentencing, Conviction Substitution, Section 296 1 Penalties
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Albert Nandwa Ayoma
Appellant
Rose Musavi Matobe
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for robbery with violence should be substituted with a conviction for simple robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code.
- 2 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the appellants committed robbery, the injuries inflicted on the complainant were classified as harm and were not of a serious nature. The amount of cash stolen was not substantial and was recovered immediately upon the appellants' arrest. Both appellants had no previous criminal records and had already spent a significant period in remand custody. In light of these mitigating factors, and with the concurrence of the State Counsel, the court held that this was an appropriate case for substituting the conviction for robbery with violence with a conviction for simple robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code. The court accordingly set aside the death...
Court Disposition
Conviction for robbery with violence substituted with conviction for simple robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code; death sentences set aside; appellants sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment from 12th June, 2000, plus two strokes for the first appellant.
Orders
- Conviction for each appellant substituted for robbery contrary to section 296(1), Penal Code.
- Death sentences set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGHCOURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.631 OF 2000
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.7040 of 1998 of the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kibera).
ALBERT NANDWA AYOMA…………………………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………………………….…RESPONDENT
CONSOLIDATED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.691 OF 2000
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.7040 of 1998 of the
Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kibera).
ROSE MUSAVI MATOBE….…………………………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………………………….RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
Criminal Appeal Nos.631 and 691 of 2000 are consolidated.
Both appellants, husband and wife respectively, have now admitted to us that they robbed the complainant of cash Ksh.3,445/= and Indian Rupees 4,185/= as charged.
However, each of them has urged us to substitute the conviction for Robbery contrary to section 296(1), P.C.
The evidence was that the 2nd appellant, Rose was working as the complainant’s house main at the material time on 25th August, 1998, at 8. 30 a.m. when she together with her husband, Albert N. Ayomo (1st appellant), robbed the complainant of the cash in her (complainant’s) house. During the course of the robbery the appellants tied up the complainant’s hands and feet with her saree after pushing her in the bathroom. Her neck was also tied with some clothes and she was threatened with a knife. Thereafter, the appellants untied her legs and took her to her bedroom where, when upon asking, she opened the cupboard the appellants helped themselves with the cash stated from therein.. She was then pushed back into the bathroom with a demand for more money, which she did not have. They beat her up and the 2nd appellant, Rose cut of the complainants hair with a pair of scissors. They (appellants) then left leaving the complainant (Hamalata) in the bathroom. Later the report of the robbery was made and the police (PW3) arrested the appellants the same day and upon searching their house recovered all the cash the complainant was robbed of from underneath a bed in the house.
In considering issue of the substitution we note that the complainant’s injuries were classified as harm, they not being of a serious nature. The cash robbed was not much and was recovered at once.
We find this case a proper one for the substitution of the conviction. Miss Okumu, the learned State Counsel for the Republic also agrees to it.
Both appellants were in remand for about one year and ten months before the case was finalized on 12th June, 2000.
Both appellants had past clean records. There is no remission for robbery sentence. Order:
We substitute the conviction against each of the two appellants for Robbery, contrary to section 296(1), P.C. and set aside the death sentences. We sentence each appellant to 4 ½ years imprisonment with effect from 12th June, 2000 plus two strokes for 1st appellant.
Judgment delivered at Nairobi on 26th day of March, 2002.
V.V. PATEL
JUDGE
W.K. TUYOIT
JUDGE