[2005] KEHC 1152 (KLR)
The court found that while there was inconsistency in the prosecution evidence regarding the weapon used and the lack of clarity on who was the aggressor, the evidence was sufficient to establish that the appellant inflicted the fatal injury on the deceased. The trial magistrate erred in selectively accepting only...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1152 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Allan Muhoro Kamenju; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 164 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Conviction upheld; sentence reduced.
- Judges
- GG Okwengu
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Self Defence, Sentencing, Evidence Assessment
- 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
Allan Muhoro Kamenju
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant unlawfully caused the death of the deceased constituting manslaughter.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the appellant's defence of self-defence.
- 3 Whether the sentence of 10 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while there was inconsistency in the prosecution evidence regarding the weapon used and the lack of clarity on who was the aggressor, the evidence was sufficient to establish that the appellant inflicted the fatal injury on the deceased. The trial magistrate erred in selectively accepting only part of the defence, but this did not undermine the overall finding of guilt for manslaughter. However, the court held that the sentence of 10 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive given the circumstances, and reduced it to 6 years. The conviction was upheld as proper, but the sentence was adjusted to reflect proportionality.
Court Disposition
Conviction upheld; sentence reduced.
Orders
- Appeal against conviction dismissed.
- Appeal against sentence allowed to the extent that the sentence is reduced to 6 years imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
Criminal Appeal 164 of 2003
(From the Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case Number 221 of 2002 in
the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Murang’a by F. F. Wanjiku – S.P.M.)
ALLAN MUHORO KAMENJU…………………………………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
Allan Muhoro Kamenju(hereinafter referred to as the Appellant)was tried and convicted by the Senior Principal Magistrate Murang’a for the offence of manslaughter Contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve 10 years imprisonment. Being aggrieved He has now brought this appeal contendinginter aliathat the trial magistrate erred in not considering his defence that He was only acting in self defence, and that he failed to weigh all the evidence as a whole.
The appellant was alleged to have unlawfully caused the death of his sister Mary Wanjiku Wambugu(hereinafter referred to as the deceased). There were 4 material witnesses who were present around the time the assault took place. These were P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4. Among these witnesses only P.W.2 Mary Muthoni Gathumbi actually testified to have seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. According to P.W.2 the appellant was using a stick. But the evidence of this witness was not consistent with that of P.C. Evans Machuki (P.W.6) who recovered a blood stained axe from the house of the appellant. Further, although the witness testified that the exhibits were taken for analysis, no report was produced.
In his defence the appellant however adopted his statement under inquiry. In that statement the appellant claimed that the deceased suffered her injuries accidentally when the appellant was trying to disarm her. According to the appellant the deceased was the aggressor and He was merely trying to defend himself.
It is obvious that none of the prosecution witnesses could testify as to how the dispute arose nor could they swear positively as to who was the aggressor. The trial magistrate accepted part of the defence evidence that the appellant used the axe but rejected the rest of the defence. I find that there was no justification for this selective application. Be that as it may the evidence is clear that the death of the deceased arose from the injury inflicted upon her by the appellant. The appellant’s conviction was therefore proper as there was enough evidence to support the charge.
As regards the sentence, it is true that a life was lost. However in the circumstances of this case the sentence of 10 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive. I would accordingly reduce the same to 6 years imprisonment.
The upshot of the above is that the appeal against conviction is dismissed. The appeal against sentence is allowed to the extent of the sentence being reduced to 6 years imprisonment.
Those shall be the orders of this court.
Dated, signed and delivered this 6th day of December 2005.
H. M. OKWENGU
JUDGE