[2002] KEHC 498 (KLR)
The court found that although the complainant sustained injuries during the robbery, these were minor and classified as harm, not grievous harm or violence as required for a conviction under section 296(2) of the Penal Code. Given the simple nature of the robbery, the appellants' admission, the lack of serious...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 498 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Charles Ouma Onyango; Appellant: John Kamau Mugo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1186 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Convictions substituted to simple robbery; death sentences set aside; appellants sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment and 2 strokes each.
- Judges
- VV Patel, F Tuiyott
- Legal Topics
- Robbery, Sentencing, Conviction Substitution, Appeal, Harm Classification
- 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 Ouma Onyango
Appellant
John Kamau Mugo
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 and the appellants' backgrounds.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the complainant sustained injuries during the robbery, these were minor and classified as harm, not grievous harm or violence as required for a conviction under section 296(2) of the Penal Code. Given the simple nature of the robbery, the appellants' admission, the lack of serious injury, and the appellants' backgrounds (with one having no previous convictions and the other's prior convictions being old), the court determined it was proper to substitute the convictions to simple robbery under section 296(1) and set aside the death sentences. The court imposed a custodial sentence of 4.5 years imprisonment and two strokes of the cane for each appellant,...
Court Disposition
Convictions substituted to simple robbery; death sentences set aside; appellants sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment and 2 strokes each.
Orders
- Conviction against each appellant substituted for robbery contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code.
- Death sentences set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1186 OF 1999
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.8393 of 1999
of the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Makadara)
CHARLES OUMA ONYANGO……………………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………………………………RESPONDENT
CONSOLIDATED WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1188 OF 1999
JOHN KAMAU MUGO………………………………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………………………………RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
Criminal appeal Nos.1186 and 1188 of 1999 are consolidated. Both appellants have now admitted to us that they jointly robbed the complainant as charged but have earnestly urged us to substitute the conviction against each of them for Robbery, contrary to Section 296(1), P.C.
The evidence was that on the night of 24th May, 1999, both appellants broke into the kiosk of the complainant in which she was sleeping and robbed her of cash Sh.7,000/= and ran away to be arrested later. She knew both the appellants for long prior to the robbery. The money was not recovered.
In considering the request for the substitution we note that although the complainant was injured during the course of the robbery on her shoulders and the right frontal part of her head, the injuries being of minor type were classified as harm.
Bearing in my the simple nature of the robbery in this case, we find it proper to grant the request for the substitution. Miss Okumu, the learned lady state counsel also consent to it. Both appellants were in remand for about five months. The previous convictions of the 1st appellant, Charles Ouma were very old and are for ignoring. The 2nd appellant had no previous conviction. 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 both appellants to 4 ½ years imprisonment each. With effect of 27th October, 1999 plus 2 strokes each.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 12th day of March, 2002.
V.V. PATEL
JUDGE
W.K. TUIYOT
JUDGE