[2018] KEHC 9139 (KLR)
The High Court found that while the trial magistrate exercised proper judicial discretion in imposing custodial sentences for the serious offence of kidnapping and ransom, the appellants had demonstrated genuine remorse, rehabilitation, and positive transformation during their incarceration. The court was persuaded...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 9139 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Ann Wambui Njeri; Appellant: Ann Nyambura Wambui; Appellant: Purity Muthoni Ranji; Appellant: Raphael Nderitu Maina; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 152, 154 & 155 & 148 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal against sentence allowed; sentences commuted to period served; appellants released
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Judicial Discretion, Kidnapping, Ransom Cases
- 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
Ann Wambui Njeri
Appellant
Ann Nyambura Wambui
Appellant
Purity Muthoni Ranji
Appellant
Raphael Nderitu Maina
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the custodial sentences imposed on the appellants were excessive or warranted reduction.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate exercised judicial discretion properly in sentencing the appellants.
- 3 Whether the appellants' demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation justified commutation of their sentences.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that while the trial magistrate exercised proper judicial discretion in imposing custodial sentences for the serious offence of kidnapping and ransom, the appellants had demonstrated genuine remorse, rehabilitation, and positive transformation during their incarceration. The court was persuaded by reports from prison authorities attesting to their reformation. Considering the period already served and the likelihood that the appellants would not reoffend, the court held that the objectives of punishment had been met. Consequently, the court commuted the remaining custodial sentences to the period already served and ordered the immediate release of the appellants...
Court Disposition
appeal against sentence allowed; sentences commuted to period served; appellants released
Orders
- The custodial sentences imposed on each appellant are commuted to the period already served.
- Each appellant is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith and released from prison unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.152, 154 & 155 OF 2014 AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.148 OF 205
(An Appeal arising out of the conviction and sentence of Hon. Hannah Ndungu (Ms.) - CM delivered on 8th October 2014 in Nairobi CMC. CR. Case No.1562 of 2012)
ANN WAMBUI NJERI.................................1st APPELLANT
ANN NYAMBURA WAMBUI....................2NDAPPELLANT
PURITY MUTHONI RANJI......................3RDAPPELLANT
RAPHAEL NDERITU MAINA.................4THAPPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC......................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The Appellants, Ann Wambui Njeri, Ann Nyambura Wambui, Purity Muthoni Ranji and Raphael Nderitu Maina were convicted of five (5) counts under the Penal Code. The charges arose from the kidnapping of a child and the subsequent demand for ransom that was made. The Appellants were convicted on 8th October 2014 and were ordered to serve various custodial sentences ranging from two (2) years imprisonment to seven (7) years imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Although the Appellants were aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, during the hearing of the appeal, they abandoned their appeals against conviction and instead pleaded with the court for reduction of sentence. The Appellants told the court that during their period of incarceration, they had learnt their lesson. They were seeking forgiveness from the court and from God. They had reformed in the period that they have been in prison. From the documents presented to court, some of the Appellants had taken the opportunity offered by their imprisonment to complete their primary education studies. They urged the court to exercise leniency on them. They undertook to live a crime free lives in the event that the court shall sentence them to serve either a non-custodial sentence or commute their sentences to the period served.
Ms. Kimiri for the State opposed the application for reduction of sentence. She submitted that the Appellants face serious charges. The custodial sentences that were imposed fitted the crime. She urged the court not to be persuaded by the Appellants’ entreaties because the court ought to take into account the crime that the Appellants committed. In the premises therefore, she urged the court to dismiss the Appellants’ plea for reduction of sentence.
When the trial magistrate sentenced the Appellants to serve custodial sentence, it was exercising judicial discretion. This court can only interfere with such exercise of discretion if it is established, either that the sentence was too harsh or too lenient in the circumstances. The court will also interfere with the imposition of custodial sentence if it is established that the trial magistrate applied the wrong principles of the law in sentencing the Appellants or that the sentence was illegal. In the present appeal, it was clear to this court that the trial court sentenced the Appellants to serve legal custodial sentences. This court can only guess the trauma and distress that the parents of the child who was kidnapped must have faced when the Appellants unlawfully took custody of the child. That being the case, this court inclination was to decline the Appellants’ plea for reduction of sentence. However, this court was persuaded by the reports filed by the Prison authorities in relation to the change of behaviour and transformation that the Appellants have undergone during their period of incarceration.
In the premises therefore, this court is of the view that the Appellants have been sufficiently punished in the period that they have served custodial sentence. They have learnt their lesson. By all indications, they are remorseful and may not be repeat offenders if they are released from prison. The custodial sentences that each Appellant was sentenced to serve is hereby commuted to the period served. Each Appellant is ordered set at liberty forthwith and released from prison unless otherwise lawfully held. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
L. KIMARU
JUDGE