[2016] KEHC 746 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence of seven years imposed by the trial court was reasonable and within the statutory maximum of fourteen years for the offence of robbery under Sections 295 and 296(1) of the Penal Code. The court held that the appellant's mitigation, including remorse, being a first offender, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 746 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Nicholas Mutinda Kanini; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 68 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Sentencing Principles, Mitigation of 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
Nicholas Mutinda Kanini
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive or based on wrong principles of law.
- 2 Whether the appellant's mitigation warranted interference with the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence of seven years imposed by the trial court was reasonable and within the statutory maximum of fourteen years for the offence of robbery under Sections 295 and 296(1) of the Penal Code. The court held that the appellant's mitigation, including remorse, being a first offender, and family circumstances, did not constitute sufficient grounds to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion in sentencing. The appellate court reiterated that it would only interfere with a sentence if it was shown to be based on wrong principles or if important factors were overlooked, neither of which was established in this case.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The appellant to serve the full sentence imposed by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2015
NICHOLAS MUTINDA KANINI…………........………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………………………..RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original Conviction and Sentence of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kithimani by Hon. D.G. Karani (PM)) in Criminal Case No. 340 of 2013 dated 13th March, 2014)
************************************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1. The accused herein was charged with Robbery contrary to Section 295as read with296(1)of the Penal Code.The particulars being that on 10th June, 2013 at 21. 40 hours at Matuu town within Yatta District of Machakos County robbed Penina Mbula of Kshs. 500,000 and immediately before the time of such robbery used actual violence to the said Penina Mbula.
2. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to serve seven (7) years in jail.
3. Not being satisfied with sentencing the appellant filed this appeal, urging the grounds that he is a first offender currently 37 years of age. To date he has served approximately 30 months of prison sentence of seven (7) years. He is married and blessed with four (4) children aged four, seven, ten and thirteen years. Before arrest and incarceration, he was the sole bread winner of his family now subsisting in poverty and misery. That after deep soul searching, he is remorseful and repentant for the offence he committed. That he has not been idle in prison and is currently in possession of a Grade III Government Trade Test in Building/Plumbing. That he is fully rehabilitated and have learnt his lesson, the value of hard work, honesty and integrity in one’s life, and that he undertakes to eschew criminal acts in future. He implores the court to facilitate his early release so that he can alleviate the hardships of his dependants.
4. The appellant during oral submissions submitted that he is interested in mitigating the sentence only.
5. The State opposed the appeal on mitigation urging the court not to interfere with the discretion of the trial court unless it is shown that the sentencing was based on wrong principles of law, or that some important factors were neglected in assessing the same.
6. I have carefully considered the appeal. The sentence imposed of seven (7) years under Section 295 and 296(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code appears reasonable since under the above sentence a maximum sentence is fourteen (14) years. The mitigation of remorsefulness, or being sole bread winner or that the appellant will abide by the law in future are not enough grounds to enable this court to interfere with the trial court’s finding on sentence.
7. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant to serve the full sentence.
8. The appellant has the right to appeal to Court of Appeal.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MACHAKOS THIS15THDAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016.
E. OGOLA
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Mr. Machogu for State
Appellant present in person
Court Assistant – Mr. Munyao