[2021] KEHC 6041 (KLR)
The High Court found that the prosecution had proved all the elements of attempted robbery with violence under section 297(2) of the Penal Code. The appellant was apprehended at the scene, armed with offensive weapons, and in the company of others. The complainant was injured during the incident. The absence of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 6041 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Meshack Ogoma Nyauke; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 1 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Attempted Robbery With Violence, Evidence Evaluation, Alibi Defence, Sentencing Guidelines
- 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
Meshack Ogoma Nyauke
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction was safe in the absence of production of an offensive weapon.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced was sufficient to sustain a conviction for attempted robbery with violence.
- 3 Whether the trial court properly rejected the appellant's alibi defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the prosecution had proved all the elements of attempted robbery with violence under section 297(2) of the Penal Code. The appellant was apprehended at the scene, armed with offensive weapons, and in the company of others. The complainant was injured during the incident. The absence of the physical offensive weapon in evidence did not undermine the prosecution's case, as credible witness testimony established the appellant's participation and the use of weapons. The trial court was justified in rejecting the appellant's alibi defence as an afterthought, given the circumstances and evidence. The sentence of death was the only lawful sentence available under the...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT HOMA BAY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2018
MESHACK OGOMA NYAUKE..................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ...................................................RESPONDENT
(Fromthe original conviction and sentence in criminal case No.1089 of 2014 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at
Homa Bay by Hon. Ndegwa – Principal Magistrate)
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant, Meshack Ogoma Nyauke, was convicted of the offence of attempted robbery with violence contrary to section 297(2) of the Penal Code.
2. The particulars of the offence were that on the night of 15th October, 2014 at Wiga village, Homa Bay District of Homa Bay County, with others not before court, while armed with machetes and clubs, attempted to rob Daniel Onyango Odoyo of his household goods and at the time of such attempt wounded the said Daniel Onyango Odoyo.
3. The appellant was sentenced to suffer death. He has appealed against both conviction and sentence.
4. The appellant was in person. His grounds of appeal can summarized as follows:
a) That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by convicting him without the production of an offensive weapon.
b) That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by convicting him without sufficient evidence.
c) That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by rejecting his alibi defence.
d) That the sentence was harsh and dehumanizing.
5. The state opposed the appeal through Mr. Ochengo, the learned counsel.
6. The facts of the prosecution case were briefly as follows:
At about 2:30 a.m. on 15th October, 2014, the complainant was roused from sleep by some noise from outside. He went out and found some thee men. With the help of some security light, he saw two of them armed with iron rods while a third one who was next to the kitchen door had a club and a machete. By this time they trio had made a hole to the kitchen wall. He screamed and two of them ran away but the person who was next to the kitchen door did not. He held him and a struggle ensued until when help by members of public arrived.
7. In his defence, the appellant denied involvement in the offence. He contended that he was framed up in the offence after he refused to go by the schemes of the complainant. He said the complainant whom he had not met before, asked him to ferry him to Wiga on his boda-boda. On reaching there, the complainant bought some beer and suggested that they go to his house after he had called someone to take his motor cycle away for he was too drunk. The complainant then asked him to inherit his sister in-law so that he could erect his house where hers stood. When he declined, the complainant beat him up and raised an alarm claiming that he wanted to steal from him.
8. This is a first appellate court. As expected, I have analyzed and evaluated afresh all the evidence adduced before the lower court and I have drawn my own conclusions while bearing in mind that I neither saw nor heard any of the witnesses. I will be guided by the celebrated case of Okeno vs. Republic [1972] EA 32.
9. The complainant explained that the weapons that the appellant had, were taken away by members of public who responded to the alarm he raised. Failure by the prosecution to produce an offensive weapon cannot be the basis of allowing an appeal.The appeal cannot turn on this ground.
10. The evidence of Eli Odhiambo Odoyo (PW3) is that he found the complainant struggling with the appellant and together with other member of public managed to separate them. The complainant had been injured. This was the gist of the evidence of Elizabeth Atieno Otieno (PW4).
11. During cross examination, the appellant suggested to the complainant that he found him walking and alleged he had broken into and damaged his house. The learned trial magistrate was therefore justified to dismiss his defence for it was clearly an afterthought.
12. The sentence for the offence of attempted robbery is provided for under subsection 2 of section 297 of the Penal Code which provides as follows:
If the offender is armed with any dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument, or is in company with one or more other person or persons, or if, at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the assault, he wounds, beats, strikes or uses any other personal violence to any person, he shall be sentenced to death.
The appellant was armed with a club and a machete. These are offensive weapons. He was also in company of two others and when his accomplices ran away, he inflicted injuries on the complainant. The ingredients of section 297(2) of the Penal Code were therefore satisfied. The sentence imposed by the learned trial magistrate was the only available legal sentence for the offence.
13. From the foregoing analysis of the evidence on record, there is no justification in faulting the judgment of the learned trial magistrate. The appeal is bereft of any merits. I accordingly dismiss it.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT HOMA BAY THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2021
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE