[2020] KEHC 9079 (KLR)
The court found that, although the appellant committed robbery with violence and inflicted injury on the victim, the nature of the injury was not excessively serious, and there was no evidence of depraved or inhumane conduct. The appellant acted alone, did not use a firearm or dangerous weapon, and expressed genuine...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 9079 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: James Kagotho Mwangi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 129 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Sentence Re Hearing After Appeal on Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Death sentence set aside; appellant sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment from original sentencing date.
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Sentencing Principles, Mitigation, Mandatory Death Penalty, Handling Stolen Property
- 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
James Kagotho Mwangi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Sentence Re Hearing After Appeal on Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence should be set aside in light of emerging jurisprudence.
- 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the appellant considering the circumstances of the offence and mitigation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although the appellant committed robbery with violence and inflicted injury on the victim, the nature of the injury was not excessively serious, and there was no evidence of depraved or inhumane conduct. The appellant acted alone, did not use a firearm or dangerous weapon, and expressed genuine remorse. Taking into account the appellant's youth at the time of the offence, his status as a first offender, and the period already spent in custody, the court held that a sentence of fifteen years' imprisonment, computed from the original sentencing date, was proportionate and just. The mandatory death sentence was therefore set aside in line with current jurisprudence...
Court Disposition
Death sentence set aside; appellant sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment from original sentencing date.
Orders
- The death sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment, computed from 15/05/2015.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 129 OF 2015
JAMES KAGOTHO MWANGI.......................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC .....................................................RESPONDENT
SENTENCE RULING
1. The Appellant was charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code at the Molo Law Courts. The substance of the charge was that on the 14th day of January 2014 at Salgaa area in Rongai District Nakuru County within Rift Valley province robbed Yusuf Kibet Sunburi of a Motor bicycle valued at 93,000/= Registration No. KMDA 379R make Bajaj Boxer red in colour and at or immediately after the time of such robbery wounded the said Yusuf Kibet Sunburi.
2. The Appellant faced an alternative charge of handling stolen Property contrary to Section 322(2) of the Penal Code. It was alleged that on the 14th January, 2014 at Salgaa in Rongai District Nakuru County within Rift Valley Province otherwise then in the course of stealing dishonestly received or retained Motor Cycle Registration Number KMDA 379R Male Bajaj Boxer red in colour knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen.
3. The Appellant denied the charges and a fully-fledged trial followed. At the conclusion of the trial, the Learned Trial Magistrate convicted the Appellant and sentences him to death.
4. Dissatisfied with both the conviction and sentence, the Appellant appealed to this Court. His appeal was heard by the Learned Mativo J. In a judgment dated 11/06/2019, the Learned Judge affirmed the Lower Court decision on conviction. The Learned Judge, however, in keeping with the emerging jurisprudence on mandatory death penalty, set aside the death sentence and ordered that the Appellant be afforded an opportunity to mitigate before sentence is pronounced on him.
5. I therefore conducted a sentence re-hearing as per the Judge’s orders since Judge Mativo had heard the matter as a Visiting Judge during service week.
6. During the sentence hearing, the Prosecution pointed out that the Appellant inflicted serious injuries on the victim and requested that the Court considers a minimum sentence of thirty (30) imprisonment. It conceded that the Appellant is a first offender.
7. On his part, the Appellant pleaded for leniency and forgiveness. He said that he was young and impressionable when he committed the offence in 2014 but that he has had plenty of time to reflect on his actions since he has been in custody since then. He told the Court that he was only twenty years old at the time he committed the offence. He pleaded for an opportunity to come out of Prison and serve the nation.
8. I have considered al the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the case. It is true that the Appellant hit the victim on the head with a club and the victim got injured. However, the nature of the injury was not too serious. There is no evidence that the Appellant used unnecessarily depraved force or acted in an excessively inhumane way towards his victim. He hit him once to gain access to the motor cycle and then fled in it.
9. The Appellant was alone in committing the crime – and he did not use a firearm or a dangerous weapon. During the hearing, the Appellant expressed remorse and I concluded that it was genuinely felt.
10. Taking all these factors into consideration and considering the relative youthfulness of the Appellant at the time he committed the offence, it is my view that a prison sentence of fifteen (15) years is proportionate to the crime he committed.
11. The orders of the Court, therefore, are that:
a. The death sentence imposed on the Appellant is hereby set aside;
b. It its place, the Appellant shall be sentenced to a period of fifteen (15) years which shall be computed from the date the Appellant was sentenced i.e. 15/05/2015. I have expressly taken into consideration the period the Appellant was in custody in coming up with the sentence term.
12. Orders accordingly.
Dated and Delivered at Nakuru this 16th day of January, 2020
………………………….
JOEL NGUGI
JUDGE