[2001] KEHC 244 (KLR)
The court found that the robbery committed by the appellants was simple in nature, as the complainant was not injured and the value of the stolen property was modest. All appellants were minors at the time of the offence and had no previous convictions. They had already spent approximately 19 months in remand...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 244 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: James Kimani Muthuita; Appellant: Fredrick Kibaya; Appellant: Patrick Macharia Kimani; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 742 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Convictions for robbery with violence substituted with convictions for simple robbery; detention orders set aside; appellants placed on 12 months probation.
- Legal Topics
- Robbery, Juvenile Offenders, Sentencing, Probation, Conviction Substitution
- 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 Kimani Muthuita
Appellant
Fredrick Kibaya
Appellant
Patrick Macharia Kimani
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the convictions for robbery with violence should be substituted with convictions for simple robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code.
- 2 Whether the appellants, being minors and first offenders, should be placed on probation instead of detention at the President's pleasure.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the robbery committed by the appellants was simple in nature, as the complainant was not injured and the value of the stolen property was modest. All appellants were minors at the time of the offence and had no previous convictions. They had already spent approximately 19 months in remand custody. Both the defence and the prosecution agreed that the circumstances warranted a substitution of the convictions from robbery with violence to simple robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code. The court determined that, given these mitigating factors, the appropriate course was to set aside the detention orders and place each appellant on 12 months probation. This...
Court Disposition
Convictions for robbery with violence substituted with convictions for simple robbery; detention orders set aside; appellants placed on 12 months probation.
Orders
- The conviction of each appellant for robbery with violence is substituted with a conviction for simple robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code.
- The detention orders are set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.742 OF 1999
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case
No.1033 of 1998 of the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at
Makadara).
JAMES KIMANI MUTHUITA …….......…………………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………….....…………………………..…RESPONDENT
CONSOLIDATED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.743 OF 1999
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case
No.1033 of 1998 of the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at
Makadara).
FREDRICK KIBAYA……….. …………………………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………..…………..…RESPONDENT
CONSOLIDATED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.744 OF 1999
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case
No.1033 of 1998 of the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at
Makadara).
PATRICK MACHARIA KIMANI……………………....…..APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………………...……… …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
Criminal appeal Nos.742, 743 and 744 of 1999 are consolidated.
Mr. Wandugi the learned advocate the three appellants has, upon information, informed us that the appellants admit robbing the complainant as charged. He has requested us to substitute the convictions for Robbery, contrary to section 296(1), P.C. and consider probation for the appellants.
We have spoken to the appellants and they confirm robbing the complainant, and ask for the substitution.
The evidence was that the three appellants robbed the complainant of his Sh.1760/= and a wrist watch, total value bring Sh.3,500/=. We note that the complainant was not at all injured during the course of the robbery and was robbed of property worth only Sh.3,500/=.
It is our considered view that bearing in mind the simple nature of this robbery, this is a proper case for the substitution asked for. Indeed, the learned State Counsel Mr. Okello has no objection to it either.
We note that the three appellants were under the age of 18 years when they robbed the complainant on 6/9/97 and none of them had any previous conviction.
The appellants were in remand for about 19 months before they were convicted and sentenced on 4/7/99. The sentence being they be detained till the President’s pleasure. Order:
We substitute the conviction of each of the three appellants for Robbery, contrary to section 296(1), P.C. and put aside the detention order.
We put each of the three appellants on 12 months probation from to-day.
Probation explained.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 1st day of November, 2001.
G.P. MBITO
JUDGE
V.V. PATEL
JUDGE