[2001] KEHC 240 (KLR)

[2001] KEHC 240 (KLR)

The court found that the robbery was of a simple nature and the injuries inflicted were minor, classified as harm. The first appellant had only one old conviction, while the second appellant had several recent convictions. Both had spent about ten months in remand. The court determined that these factors justified...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KEHC 240 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Boniface Mutuku Makanda; Appellant: Zakayo Kasyoki Kasili; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 683 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
conviction substituted; sentences varied
Judges
GP Mbito, VV Patel
Legal Topics
Robbery, Sentencing, Conviction Substitution, Previous Convictions, Remission of Sentence
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Robbery Sentencing Conviction Substitution Previous Convictions Remission of Sentence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boniface Mutuku Makanda

Appellant

Zakayo Kasyoki Kasili

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code was proper in light of the evidence and circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants were appropriate given their personal circumstances and previous convictions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the robbery was of a simple nature and the injuries inflicted were minor, classified as harm. The first appellant had only one old conviction, while the second appellant had several recent convictions. Both had spent about ten months in remand. The court determined that these factors justified substituting the convictions for robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code and setting aside the death sentences. The first appellant, being a cripple and unable to walk, was entitled to immediate release, while the second appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment plus two strokes, both sentences effective from 30/6/99.

Court Disposition

conviction substituted; sentences varied

Orders

  • Conviction against both appellants substituted for robbery contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code.
  • Death sentences set aside.