Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Criminal Appeal 66 of 1994 |
---|---|
Parties: | Macdonald Makasi & Another v Republic |
Date Delivered: | 27 Sep 1994 |
Case Class: | Criminal |
Court: | Court of Appeal at Nakuru |
Case Action: | Judgment |
Judge(s): | Philip Kiptoo Tunoi, Richard Otieno Kwach, Mathew Guy Muli |
Citation: | Macdonald Makasi & Another v Republic [1994] eKLR |
Case History: | (Appeal from a Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Eldoret (Mr. Justice Aganyanya) dated 1st February 1992 IN H.C.CR.A. NO. 215 OF 1992) |
History Docket No: | H.C.CR.A. NO. 215 OF 1992 |
History Judges: | Daniel Kennedy Sultani Aganyanya |
Case Summary: | Criminal Law-conviction on their own plea of guilty, of robbery |
History County: | Uasin Gishu |
Case Outcome: | Dismissed |
Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
Criminal Appeal 66 of 1994
MACDONALD MAKASI
ALFRED MULOS………………………….............................……………………….APPELLANTS
AND
REPUBLIC…………………………….............................…………………………..RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Eldoret (Mr. Justice Aganyanya) dated 1st February 1992
IN
H.C.CR.A. NO. 215 OF 1992)
*************************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The two appellants, who are brothers, were convicted on their own plea of guilty, of robbery contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane followed by 5 years police supervision. Their appeal to the Superior Court against sentence was summarily rejected under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Having admitted the offence and the facts as stated by the prosecution before a conviction was entered, the appellants had no right of appeal against conviction. So their complaints in this regard before us cannot be considered and are rejected.
Robbery under section 296(1) carries a maximum sentence of 14 years together with corporal punishment not exceeding 28 strokes. The sentences imposed by the trial Magistrate were quite lenient and the claim by the appellants that they were harsh and excessive is baseless.
The complaints directed against conviction must be disregarded as the appellants had pleaded guilty and even the Superior Court would have had no power to deal with them.
From what we have said, it must follow that the summary rejection was proper and we accordingly uphold it. In the result this appeal fails and it is dismissed.
Dated and delivered at Nakuru this 27th day of September, 1994.
R.O. KWACH
………………………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
M.G. MULI
……………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
P.K. TUNOI
……………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR