[2002] KEHC 464 (KLR)
The court found that, given the appellant's admission to the offence of robbery and the classification of the complainant's injuries as 'harm,' the circumstances did not warrant a conviction for robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code. Both the appellant and the State Counsel agreed to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 464 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Charles Mutitu Kigaita; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 177 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction substituted; sentence varied
- Judges
- VV Patel, F Tuiyott
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Simple Robbery, Sentencing, Plea Change
- 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
Charles Mutitu Kigaita
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code should be substituted with a conviction for simple robbery under section 296(1).
- 2 Whether the death sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the appellant's admission and circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, given the appellant's admission to the offence of robbery and the classification of the complainant's injuries as 'harm,' the circumstances did not warrant a conviction for robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code. Both the appellant and the State Counsel agreed to the substitution of the charge to simple robbery under section 296(1). The court also considered that the appellant was a first offender and had been in custody since his arrest. Accordingly, the court substituted the conviction to simple robbery and set aside the death sentence, imposing instead a sentence of three years imprisonment and two strokes of the cane, effective from the date...
Court Disposition
conviction substituted; sentence varied
Orders
- Conviction for robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code is substituted with a conviction for simple robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code.
- Death sentence is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.177 OF 2001
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.45 of 1999 of the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kiambu).
CHARLES MUTITU KIGAITA………………………..…APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………………………….RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The appellant Charles Mutitu Kigaita was on the 2nd February, 2001 convicted by the learned Senior Resident Magistrate Mr. G.M. Njuguna in Kiambu Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No.45 of 1999 with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer death as provided by law. He has appealed against both the conviction and sentence.However, on the 14th March, 2002 when the hearing of the appeal commenced the appellant changed his mind and admitted to have robbed the complainant jointly with others that he prayed for the substitution of robbery with violence to a lesser charge of robbery contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code. He also prayed that the death sentence be set aside. The learned State Counsel Mr. Otieno did not object the substitution of robbery with violence to lesser charge of simple robbery contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code. We have heard the submission of both the ……. That Counsel of the appellant. We have read the lower court proceedings as well as the judgment of the learned trial magistrate. The injuries suffered by the complainant during the robbery was classified by the doctor as “harm”………………the learned state counsel Mr. Ogao has no objection to the substitution of the robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code to a lesser charge of robbery contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code. We need not analyse the evidence adduced at the lower court during the trial. We find that this case is suitable for substitution of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code with a simple robbery contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code and we hereby do so. We hereby set aside the appellant by the learned trial magistrate. The appellant was arrested on the 18th November, 1998 and reminded in custody until 2nd February, 2001 when he was convicted. He was found by the learned trial magistrate to be a first offender.
We therefore sentence the appellant to serve 3 years imprisonment plus 2 strokes of the cane, with effect from 2nd February, 2001.
Dated and delivered in Nairobi this 19th day of March 2002.
V.V. PATEL
JUDGE
W.K. TUIYOT
JUDGE