[2008] KEHC 2472 (KLR)
The High Court found that the sentence of 5 years imprisonment for the offence of robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code was lawful and not manifestly excessive or harsh. The trial magistrate exercised her sentencing discretion judicially, taking into account relevant considerations and disregarding...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 2472 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: William Muriithi Wanjiku; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 279 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Only
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Robbery, Judicial Discretion, Appeal on 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
William Muriithi Wanjiku
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Only
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 5 years imprisonment for robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code was harsh and excessive.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate exercised sentencing discretion judicially.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the sentence of 5 years imprisonment for the offence of robbery under section 296(1) of the Penal Code was lawful and not manifestly excessive or harsh. The trial magistrate exercised her sentencing discretion judicially, taking into account relevant considerations and disregarding irrelevant ones. The appellant's arguments regarding reformation and remorse did not warrant interference with the sentence, as the sentence imposed was well within the statutory maximum and justified by the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, there was no basis for the appellate court to reduce the sentence.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
- The sentence of 5 years imprisonment imposed by the trial court is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
Criminal Appeal 279 of 2005
WILLIAM MURIITHI WANJIKU .......................... APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ....................................................... RESPONDENT
(Appeal from original Judgment in the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Nanyuki in
Criminal Case No. 1901 of 2003 dated 4th day of March 2005 by P. C. Tororey – SRM)
J U D G M E N T
The appellant was convicted after trial for the offence of robbery contrary to section 296 (1) of the Penal Code. The charge having been reduced from the initial one of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code. He was thereafter sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
In this appeal before me, limited to sentence only the appellant petitions me to reduce the sentence on the ground that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive; that he had reformed, become saved Christian and a preacher to the condemned in prison. Finally he submitted that he was remorseful.
The appellant, was among a group of 5 people who attacked the complainant as she walked home with her children. The attack was at Likii River in Nanyuki. In the process the complainant lost her lesso, a wrist watch and cash Kshs.1,400/=. During the attack, the complainant grabbed the appellant’s trousers and never let it go until she was assisted by her daughter to subdue the appellant as they screamed. Members of the public joined the fray, arrested the appellant, as his other colleagues escaped and took him to the police station. He was thereafter charged.
Although the appellant was initially charged with offence of robbery with violence, the learned magistrate for reasons which are not clear from the record however opted to reduce the charge to one of simple robbery. Perhaps the decision was informed by the fact that nothing was stolen from the complainant. It would appear from the evidence of the complainant that the items she lost during the attack were not taken by the appellant and or his accomplices. The appellant who was arrested at the scene of crime was not at all found in possession of the said items. It is possible that those items may have been taken by members of the public who joined in the fray to assist the complainant. It was therefore collateral lose which could be blamed on the appellant.
Be that as it may, the offence for which the appellant was eventually convicted of, carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. However the appellant was only sentenced to 5 years. It cannot be said therefore that the sentence was harsh nor manifestly excessive. It was legal. The sentencing notes of the learned magistrate clearly demonstrates why the learned magistrate felt that the sentence imposed was appropriate. The learned magistrate was alive to sound sentencing principles. She exercised her discretion in sentencing judicially as opposed to capriciously. She took into account relevant considerations and eschewed irrelevant considerations.
I think that the sentence imposed by the trial court was not manifestly excessive and or harsh as to call for my intervention. Accordingly I decline to review the sentence imposed downwards with the consequence that the appeal is dismissed.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 10th day of June 2008
M. S. A. MAKHANDIA
JUDGE