[2009] KEHC 1055 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant was not adequately warned of the consequences of pleading guilty to a charge of robbery with violence, which carries a mandatory death sentence. The mere re-reading of the charge and informing the appellant of the sentence was insufficient. The appellant's mitigation statement...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1055 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kasena Juma Bambaya; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 3 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; retrial ordered
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Plea Taking, Equivocal Plea, Sentencing, Retrial, Penal Code Section 296 2
- 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
Kasena Juma Bambaya
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and valid in law.
- 2 Whether the appellant was adequately warned of the consequences of pleading guilty to a charge attracting a mandatory death sentence.
- 3 Whether a retrial should be ordered after quashing the conviction and sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant was not adequately warned of the consequences of pleading guilty to a charge of robbery with violence, which carries a mandatory death sentence. The mere re-reading of the charge and informing the appellant of the sentence was insufficient. The appellant's mitigation statement indicated he did not fully appreciate the gravity of the offence. Consequently, the plea was equivocal and the conviction unsafe. The court further held that a retrial would not prejudice the appellant, as the charge read to him was robbery with violence and witnesses were available. Therefore, the conviction was quashed, the sentence set aside, and a retrial ordered before a...
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; retrial ordered
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The conviction is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA Criminal Appeal 3 of 2008
KASENA JUMA BAMBAYA...…………………………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………………..………….RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Kasena Juma Bambaya, the appellant, was charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that the appellant on the 7th day of January 2008, at Shimanzi area, Makupa in Mombasa District within Coast Province, robbed Nelson Oduor Ogala of his mobile phone make 02 valued at Kshs. 12,000/= and at or immediately before or immediately after the time of such robbery threatened to use actual violence to the said Nelson Oduor Ogala.
The appellant appeared before B. N. Olao, Chief Magistrate on 10th January 2008 and pleaded guilty to the charge. The prosecutor then stated the facts of the offence and when the appellant was invited to react to those facts, he stated that “it is true I violently robbed him and injured him.” The Learned Chief Magistrate then convicted the appellant on his own plea of guilty and after taking the appellant’s mitigation sentenced him to death.
The appellant was dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence and has appealed to this court on the primary ground that his plea was not unequivocal.
Mr. Monda, the Learned Senior state Counsel does not support the conviction of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not warned of the consequences of conviction. The Learned Counsel urged us to order a retrial. He submitted that witnesses would be readily available and the appellant would not be prejudiced in any way.
Counsel for the appellant opposed a retrial, contending that the appellant would indeed be prejudiced in view of the fact (according to him) that the appellant was originally charged with simple robbery under section 296 (1) of the Penal Code.
We concur with the Learned Senior State Counsel that the appellant does not appear to have been adequately warned of the consequences of conviction. The record shows that the court read the charge more than once to the appellant and informed him of the sentence. In our view mere re-reading of the charge and information was not enough. In our view, the Learned Chief Magistrate should have specifically cautioned and warned the appellant of the consequences of pleading guilty to the charge as it attracted a mandatory death sentence on conviction. If the appellant had been sufficiently warned, he would not have stated in mitigation that he should be forgiven and that he would not repeat the offence. That statement in mitigation clearly suggested that the appellant did not appreciate the offence he had been charged with. We agree with Mr. Monda that to that extent, the plea was equivocal and he had rightly conceded the appeal.
With regard to the retrial sought by the Learned Senior State Counsel, Mr. Magolo, Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a retrial would prejudice the appellant since he had been originally charged with simple robbery which charge was irregularly amended to robbery with violence. With respect to Mr. Magolo, we think that complaint was not well taken. The charge which was read to the appellant when he appeared before Hon. B. N. Olao was that of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code. It is that offence to which he pleaded and was subsequently convicted. We do not therefore think that a retrial will prejudice the appellant especially as we have been assured that witnesses are available and the retrial will be conducted with dispatch.
In the premises, we allow the appeal, quash the conviction and set aside the death sentence against the appellant. The appellant is to be retried on the same charge before a different magistrate. He is to remain in custody till such retrial.
Orders accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009.
F. AZANGALALA M. ODERO
JUDGEJUDGE
Read in the presence of:-
The Appellant and Mr. Onserio for the State.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
6TH OCTOBER 2009