[2002] KEHC 477 (KLR)
The court found that, since no one was injured during the robbery and the stolen vehicle was recovered the next day, the circumstances justified substituting the conviction for robbery with violence with a conviction for simple robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code. The court also upheld the convictions for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 477 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Moses Ndungu Kamanu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1501 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal partially allowed; conviction for robbery with violence substituted with simple robbery; sentences reduced and ordered to run concurrently.
- Judges
- VV Patel
- Legal Topics
- Robbery, Firearm Offences, Sentencing, 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
Moses Ndungu Kamanu
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for robbery with violence should be substituted with a conviction for simple robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code.
- 2 Whether the convictions for possession of a firearm without a certificate were proper.
- 3 What sentence is appropriate in light of the circumstances and the appellant's lack of previous convictions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, since no one was injured during the robbery and the stolen vehicle was recovered the next day, the circumstances justified substituting the conviction for robbery with violence with a conviction for simple robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code. The court also upheld the convictions for possession of a firearm without a certificate, finding the evidence sufficient. In sentencing, the court considered the appellant's lack of previous convictions and the period spent in remand, reducing the sentences on all counts and ordering that they run concurrently.
Court Disposition
Appeal partially allowed; conviction for robbery with violence substituted with simple robbery; sentences reduced and ordered to run concurrently.
Orders
- The conviction on the 1st count is substituted for Robbery, contrary to section 296(1), Penal Code.
- The death sentence is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1501 OF 2000
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.1227 of 2000 of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kibera).
MOSES NDUNGU KAMANU…………………………….…APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………….………………………….RESPODNENT
J U D G M E N T
The appellant has now admitted that he, jointly with others not before the court, robbed the complainant of her motor vehicle Toyota Corrolla, Reg. No. KAG 288Q on 24/1/2000 along Kiambu road at Nduati as charged on count No.1. He has urged us to substitute the conviction on it for Robbery, contrary to section 296(1), P.C.
The evidence was that the complainant was robbed of her said car at about 5. 45 p.m. on the material day by the appellant and dothers armed with pistols.
In considering the request for the substitution of the conviction we note that no one was injured in the course of the robbery. Further that the motor vehicle was recovered the next day. Bearing in mind these facts, the learned state counsel, Mr. Monda does not object to the substitution and rightly so. We find this case to be a proper one for the substitution asked for.
On the 2nd , 3rd and 4th counts the appellant was convicted on each of them of possessing a firearm without a firearm certificate. Having considered the evidence adduced in the court below on the said counts we find that the convictions were proper and uphold them. The appellant had no previous conviction and was in remand for one year before the case finally ended. There is no remission for robbery sentence.
ORDER
The conviction on the 1st count is substituted for Robbery, contrary to section 296(1), P.C. and the death sentence is set aside. We sentence the appellant on the said 1st count to 4 ½ years imprisonment with effect from 8/12/2000 plus two strokes. The sentence one ach of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Counts is reduced to 4 ½ years imprisonment. The prison sentences on all the four counts to run concurrently.
V.V. PATEL
JUDGE
27/2/2002
W.K. TUYOIT
JUDGE
27/2/2002