[2002] KEHC 494 (KLR)
The court found that the offence was committed in broad daylight, allowing for positive identification of the appellant by the salesman. The appellant's conduct of fleeing and hiding in a private residence was deemed inconsistent with innocence. The court held that the evidence established that the appellant,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 494 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Obel Ochieng; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1213 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Identification Evidence, Common Intention, Burden of Proof
- 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
Obel Ochieng
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was positively identified as one of the robbers.
- 2 Whether the prosecution proved the offence of robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt.
- 3 Whether the appellant's conduct was consistent with innocence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the offence was committed in broad daylight, allowing for positive identification of the appellant by the salesman. The appellant's conduct of fleeing and hiding in a private residence was deemed inconsistent with innocence. The court held that the evidence established that the appellant, together with others, had a common intention to rob and did rob the complainant, using a weapon to threaten. The prosecution proved the offence of robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant's grounds of appeal regarding identification and possession of exhibits were not persuasive. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- Right of appeal explained to the appellant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
CIRMINAL APPEAL NO. 1213 OF 1999
OBEL OCHIENG……………………………………………..APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………………………….RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises form the conviction of the appellant herein of the offence of robbery with violence c/s 296(20 of the penal code.
The robbery involved a bread delivery van with two occupants, the driver and a salesman. On 6th October, 1998 near Prison training College, Ruiru, in thika District, a man holding an empty crate of bread stopped the said van intending to buy some bread. When the driver stopped the motor vehicle, the salesman alighted and went to the rear to sell the bread. When he asked for money, the man produced a pistol and instead demanded money form the salesman. Two other people emerged. The salesman ran away screaming which action attracted members of the public.
There was evidence that members of public gave chase and killed tow of the suspects while one, the appellant herein, ran into a house and hid therein until he was arrested. When the salesman ran away screaming, two of the suspects attempted to steal the van but failed. However, in the process, Kshs. 4,497/50 was stolen from the drivers cabin. The appellant was subsequently charged with robbery aforesaid.
In his defence, the appellant said that, on the said date he met three people along the way who stopped him and said he was the one who had attacked them. They attacked him and ran away.
In his petition of appeal he challenged the conviction on the grounds that, conditions for positive identification were lacking and that he exhibits recovered were not found in his possession.
We have considered the entire record before us. The offence was committed during broad day light, at about noon. The encounter was sudden but the salesman was emphatic that the appellant was one of the robbers.When members of public gave chase, the appellant was among those who were being pursued. Tehre is evidence htat he ran into a private residence and locked himself in one of the rooms. That is not the conduct of an innocent person.
From the circumstances prevailing, the three people who included the appellant had a common intention to rob and did rob the complainant. A weapon was used albeit to threaten the salesman. The offence was proved beyond reasonable doubt. This appeal must fail.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Order accordingly.
Right of appeal explained.
Dated and delivered this 2nd day of October, 2002.
MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE
G. MBITO
JUDGE