[2023] KEHC 586 (KLR)
The High Court found that the convictions of the 2nd and 4th appellants were safe and should be upheld, as they had abandoned their appeals on conviction. The court determined that the sentence of restitution imposed by the lower court was lawful but required clarification regarding apportionment of liability. Each...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 586 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Robert Moseti Onkwani; Appellant: Obadiah Nyambane Gwaro; Appellant: Graham Rioba Sagwe; Appellant: Gladys Moraa Gichana; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E007 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal on conviction abandoned; conviction upheld; sentence of restitution clarified and apportioned; suspended sentence to be set aside upon full payment.
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Restitution Orders, Sentencing Principles, Criminal Appeals, Bail Application
- 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
Robert Moseti Onkwani
Appellant
Obadiah Nyambane Gwaro
Appellant
Graham Rioba Sagwe
Appellant
Gladys Moraa Gichana
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction of the 2nd and 4th appellants was safe and should be upheld.
- 2 Whether the sentence of restitution imposed by the lower court was lawful and appropriate.
- 3 Whether the liability for restitution should be apportioned individually to each appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the convictions of the 2nd and 4th appellants were safe and should be upheld, as they had abandoned their appeals on conviction. The court determined that the sentence of restitution imposed by the lower court was lawful but required clarification regarding apportionment of liability. Each of the 2nd and 4th appellants was ordered to pay Kshs 3,043,384.50 to Guaranty Trust Bank Kenya within four months. In default of payment, the complainant is at liberty to execute for payment, and the appellants in default will be arrested to serve the suspended sentence of 18 months imprisonment. If the restitution is paid in full, the suspended sentence will be set aside.
Court Disposition
Appeal on conviction abandoned; conviction upheld; sentence of restitution clarified and apportioned; suspended sentence to be set aside upon full payment.
Orders
- Each of the 2nd and 4th appellants shall pay Kshs 3,043,384.50 to Guaranty Trust Bank Kenya within four months of the judgment date.
- In default of payment, the complainant (GTB) is at liberty to execute for payment of the sums.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
Onkwani & 3 others v Republic (Criminal Appeal E007, E010 & E078 of 2022 & E026 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2023] KEHC 586 (KLR) (Crim) (8 February 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 586 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Appeal E007, E010 & E078 of 2022 & E026 of 2023 (Consolidated)
K Kimondo, J
February 8, 2023
Between
Robert Moseti Onkwani
1st Appellant
Obadiah Nyambane Gwaro
2nd Appellant
Graham Rioba Sagwe
3rd Appellant
Gladys Moraa Gichana
4th Appellant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Appeal from the judgment in Milimani Chief Magistrates Criminal Case No. 1998 of 2010 by Francis Andayi, Chief Magistrate, dated 10th December, 2021)
Judgment
1. The 2nd appellant and the 4th appellant lodged petitions of appeal challenging both their conviction and sentence by the lower court.
2. At the mention of their consolidated appeals on February 8, 2023, they unequivocally abandoned their appeals on conviction. They also offered to restitute to the complainant, now known as Guaranty Trust Bank Kenya (hereafter GTB) the sum of Kshs 3,043,384 each.
3. Learned counsel for the Republic, Ms Oduor, conceded the appeal on those terms.
4. This is a first appellate court. I have re-appraised the evidence and records and drawn my independent conclusions. See Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32, Njoroge v Republic [1987] KLR 19.
5. From the prosecution’s evidence in the lower court, I am satisfied that the conviction against the 2nd and 4th appellants was safe. I uphold it. In any event, I have stated that the two appellants no longer challenge it.
6. I also find that the sentence on restitution was well within the law. But I find that the more appropriate course for the lower court should have been to apportion blame on liability to each of the appellants. Taking into account the sums posted as bail by the accused persons in the lower court and which were applied to the restitution order; I find that each of the two appellants should restitute to GTB the sum of Kshs 3,043,384. 50 (three million, fourty three thousands, three eighty-four shillings and fifty cents). Considering the sums involved, I order that each of the two appellants shall pay the said sums within 4 (four) months of today’s date. In default, thereof, the complainant (GTB) will be at liberty to execute for payment of the sums.
7. Since the restitution order carried a suspended sentence, I must order that in the event of default, the appellant or appellants in default will be arrested to serve the suspended sentence by the lower court of 18 months in jail.
8. For the avoidance of doubt, if the 2nd and 4th appellants pay the restitution above-mentioned in full, the suspended sentence shall stand set aside.It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023. KANYI KIMONDOJUDGEJudgment read virtually on Microsoft Teams in the presence of-2nd & 4th appellantsMr Omari for the 2nd & 4th appellants instructed by Muthoga & Omari advocates.Ms Oduor for the Republic instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.Mr E Ombuna, Court Assistant.