[2010] KEHC 2508 (KLR)
The court found that the sentences of five and four years imprisonment imposed on the appellants for robbery, out of a possible maximum of fourteen years, were neither excessive nor illegal. The court emphasized that sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion and that there were no sufficient grounds presented to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2508 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: John Gichohi Joshua; Appellant: Amos Mumero Sighangi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 146 & 145 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Robbery Offences, Appeal on Sentence
- 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
John Gichohi Joshua
Appellant
Amos Mumero Sighangi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants for robbery contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code were harsh and excessive.
- 2 Whether there were sufficient grounds to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentences of five and four years imprisonment imposed on the appellants for robbery, out of a possible maximum of fourteen years, were neither excessive nor illegal. The court emphasized that sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion and that there were no sufficient grounds presented to warrant interference with the sentences imposed by the trial court. The court noted the gravity of the offence and the circumstances, including the violence used and the property lost, and concluded that the sentences were, if anything, lenient. Accordingly, the appeal against sentence failed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Criminal Appeal 146 & 145 of 2006
JOHN GICHOHI JOSHUA………………….1ST APPELLANT
AMOS MUMERO SIGHANGI…………….2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………………..RESPONDENT
(An Appeal from original conviction and sentence in Nyahururu P.M.CR.C.NO.230/2006
by Hon. G. A. M’masi, Ag. PrincipalMagistrate,dated30th May, 2006)
JUDGMENT
The two appellants in this consolidated appeal have challenged their conviction and sentence for the offence of robberycontrary to section 296(1) P.C. (simple robbery) but when the appeal came up for hearing before us they withdrew the appeal on conviction.This judgment is therefore in relation to the sentence.
The two appellants and another were charged with two counts of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code.It is alleged in the charge sheet that the three, armed with dangerous weapons, namely axes, pangas and rungus, robbed Kihu Karoki (the complainant in thefirst count) of cash Kshs.19,000/=, a mobile phone (Nokia 6310), two jackets, three Barclays Bank ATM cards and a national identity card.It is further alleged that at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the said robbery, the appellants and their accomplices threatened to use actual violence to the complainant.
On the same day (29th December, 2005), the three are also alleged to have robbed the complainant in the 2nd count (Paul Muchina Wanyagia) of a mobile phone (Motorolla V50) and used actual violence on the said Paul Muchina Wanyagia.
Finally, the three were charged with assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to section 251 of the Penal Code.According to the charge sheet, the three are alleged to have assaulted John Wanjohi Gaturu on29th December, 2005occasioning him actual bodily harm.The court found that this charge was not proved and the appellants and their co-accused were acquitted.The appellants’ co-accused was also acquitted on the two counts.
The first appellant was sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment in count 1 and four (4) years imprisonment in count 2 – the sentences to run concurrently.The 2nd appellant was sentenced to four (4) years imprisonment.This is what is before us.
The appellants aver in their grounds of appeal that their respective sentences were harsh and excessive.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal arguing that the maximum sentence being fourteen years, the sentences meted out were lenient.
Sentencing is an exercise of discretion and this court will not lightly interfere with a sentence unless it is shown to be illegal or excessive in the circumstances of the case.In our view the sentences
were neither excessive nor illegal.Certainly five (5) and four (4) years out of a possible fourteen (14) years can only be described as luck for the appellants, considering what the complainant went through during the robbery not to mention the properties lost in the robbery.No sufficient grounds have been presented to us to warrant interference with the sentence.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nakuru this 7th day of May, 2010
M. G. MUGO
JUDGE
W. OUKO
JUDGE