[2008] KEHC 986 (KLR)
The court found that the sentences of four years for simple robbery and one year for giving false information were well within the statutory maximums and could not be considered harsh. The appellant's plea in mitigation did not warrant a reduction of sentence. The appeal against sentence lacked merit and was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 986 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Mwangi Munyiri; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 184 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- DK Maraga
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Sentencing, False Information, Firearms Offences
- 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
Peter Mwangi Munyiri
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the appellant for simple robbery and giving false information were harsh or excessive.
- 2 Whether there was merit in the appeal against sentence after conviction was abandoned.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentences of four years for simple robbery and one year for giving false information were well within the statutory maximums and could not be considered harsh. The appellant's plea in mitigation did not warrant a reduction of sentence. The appeal against sentence lacked merit and was dismissed accordingly.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
- The sentences of four years and one year imprisonment to run consecutively are upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Criminal Appeal 184 of 2004
PETER MWANGI MUNYIRI………....………...…APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………..…………….RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The Appellant was with another charged with robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code and being in possession of an imitation of a firearm contrary to Section 34(1) of the Firearms Act. The Appellant was alone also charged with giving false information to a person employed in the Public Service contrary to Section 129(a) of the Penal Code and failing to register contrary to Section 14(1) of the Registration of Persons Act. Upon trial the co-accused was acquitted of the charges against him but the Appellant was convicted of simple robbery and giving false information and sentenced to four and one year imprisonment respectively. He has appealed against both convictions and sentences. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
At the hearing the Appellant abandoned the appeal against the conviction and prayed that the sentences be reduced. Mr. Mugambi, the learned state counsel, left the matter of sentence to me.
I have considered the Appellant's plea in mitigation. The offence of simple robbery on which he was convicted carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment while that of giving false information carries a maximum sentence of 3 years imprisonment. The sentences of 4 and 1 years imprisonment respectively imposed on him cannot be said to be harsh. I therefore find no merit in this appeal and I accordingly dismiss it.
DATED and delivered at Nakuru this 3rd day of October, 2008.
D. K. MARAGA
JUDGE