[1984] KEHC 27 (KLR)
The court found that the appeals of the 1st and 2nd appellants, Mwangi Chege and Thiongo Mwangi, lacked merit as the grounds of appeal were general and did not specify any substantive errors in the convictions. The court emphasized that petitions of appeal must relate intelligently to the facts and not be mere...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1984] KEHC 27 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mwangi Chege; Appellant: Thiongo Mwangi; Appellant: Katherine Wamboi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 93 of 1984
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeals of 1st and 2nd appellants dismissed; appeal of 3rd appellant allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm, Grounds of Appeal, Petition Requirements
- 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
Mwangi Chege
Appellant
Thiongo Mwangi
Appellant
Katherine Wamboi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the convictions of the appellants were supported by the evidence adduced.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive in the circumstances.
- 3 Whether the petition of appeal met the required legal standards.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appeals of the 1st and 2nd appellants, Mwangi Chege and Thiongo Mwangi, lacked merit as the grounds of appeal were general and did not specify any substantive errors in the convictions. The court emphasized that petitions of appeal must relate intelligently to the facts and not be mere stereotypes. The convictions and sentences for these appellants were upheld. However, the court accepted the concession by the Principal State Counsel regarding the 3rd appellant, Katherine Wamboi, as there was no evidence implicating her in the offence. Consequently, her appeal was allowed, her conviction quashed, and her sentence set aside, with any fine paid to be refunded.
Court Disposition
Appeals of 1st and 2nd appellants dismissed; appeal of 3rd appellant allowed.
Orders
- Appeals of Mwangi Chege and Thiongo Mwangi are dismissed.
- Appeal of Katherine Wamboi is allowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
CRIMINAL APPEAL 94 OF 1984
MWANGI CHEGE ……………………………………..APPELLANT (Original Accused I)
v e r s u s
REPUBLIC ……………………………………………..REPSONDENT
CONSLOLIDATED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL 94 OF 1984
(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case 13268 of 1983 of the Resident Magistrate’ Court at Makadara, R M Njiru Esq)
THIONGO MWANGI …………………………………APPELLANT (Original Accused2)
v e r s u s
REPUBLIC …………………………………………….RESPONDENT
CONSLOLIDATED WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL 95 OF 1984 (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case 13268 of 1983 of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Makadara, R M Njiru Esq)
KATHERINE WAMBOI …………………………. ……… APPELLANT Original Accused 3)
V e r s u s
REPUBLIC ………………………………………………….RESPONDENT
CORAM SACHDEVA J
P S Gatimu for appellants
E K Muttu (Principal State Counsel) for Respondent.
----------------
J U D G E M E N T
I have consolidated these three appeals.
All the three appellants had been jointly charged before the learned Ag. Resident Magistrate at Makadara, with Assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to section 251 of the Penal Code. They were convicted after trial and each was fined Shs.1,000 in default, to serve four months in prison.
Through their advocate, Mr P S Gatimu, they are appealing both against conviction and sentence. Their short identical petitions of appeal are in the following terms –
1. The learned magistrate erred in convicting the appellants on the basis of the evidence adduced.
2. The conviction was against the weight of evidence.
3. The sentence was ‘execessive’ having regard to the nature of the case.
The third ground, is obviously directed against sentence. The first and the second grounds do not make me any wiser as to what is claimed to be wrong in the convictions.
Attention of Mr Gatimu is drawn to Muchoki Irima v R [1977] Kenya L R 164 and various authorities cited therein, as to what the contents of petitions of appeal should be. I quote a short passage from pages 165 and 166:
“In Mutemba s/o Rutehende v R [1953] 20 E A C A 276, the Court of Appeal for East Africa ruled that, a petition of appeal should bear an intelligent relation to the facts as revealed by the evidence and should not degenerate into a stereo-typed form. In Riano s/o Lenalaiman v R [1968] E A 968, the Court of Appeal held that, it is not sufficient ground of appeal to allege that a conviction was bad in law, or that a conviction was against the weight of evidence, and where an appellant is represented by counsel, he will not be allowed to argue any point under a general ground of appeal.”
However, when the hearing of these appeals commenced, Mr Gatimu abandoned the appeals of the 1st appellant, Mwangi Chege, and the 2nd appellant, Thiongo, which are hereby dismissed. Mr Muttu, Principal State Counsel for the Republic, conceded the appeal of the 3rd appellant, Katherine Wamboi, as there is not evidence implicating her with the commission of the offence. Accordingly, the appeal of Katherine Wamboi is allowed, conviction quashed and sentence set aside. If she has paid any fine, it must be refunded to her.
Dated at Nairobi and delivered this 9th day of May, 1984.
S K SACHDEVA
JUDGE