Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | crim app 1230 of 99 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | DENNIS KILONZI MULATYA vs REPUBLIC |
| Date Delivered: | 01 Nov 1999 |
| Case Class: | Criminal |
| Court: | High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) |
| Case Action: | Judgment |
| Judge(s): | Gideon P Mbito, Vinubhai Vithalbhai Patel |
| Citation: | DENNIS KILONZI MULATYA vs REPUBLIC[1999] eKLR |
| Parties Profile: | Individual v Government |
| County: | Nairobi |
| 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 |
DENNIS KILONZI MULATYA…………………...…..………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………………………….RESPONDENT
CONSOLIDATED WITH
SAMMY MUSYOKA KILONZI……………………..………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………………………….RESPONDENT
CONSOLIDATED WITH
ISSAAC ISIKA MUSYOKA……………………..…..………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………………………….RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1230, 1231 and 1232 of 1999 are consolidated. The other co-convict, Matetei Muasya Musili died in prison pending the hearing of his appeal No.1229/99 and the said appeal is now marked as abated.
The three appellants in court have now admitted that they robbed the two complainants counts as charged but charged but have urged us to substitute their convictions for Robbery, contrary to section 296(1), P.C.
The evidence was that the appellants jointly with others, robbed the 1st complainant of property worth Sh.20,730/= and the 2nd complainant of the property worth Sh.21,000/= on the night of 16th/17th December, 1998.
It is clear from the testimonies of the 1st complainant (Martin) and his wife that both of them were injured during the cause of the robbery. However, their injuries were classified as harm.
The 2nd complainant was not injured at all. Some property of the two complainants was set on fire by the robbers.
Having considered the evidence we find this to be a suitable case for the substitution of the convictions for contrary to section 296(1), P.C.
The learned State Counsel M/S Ambasi has no objection to the substitution.
All the three appellants were first offenders. They were in remand for about one year. There is no remission for robbery sentence.
ORDER:
We substitute the convictions against the three appellants on both counts for Robbery, contrary to section 296(1), P.C. and set aside the death sentences. We sentence each of the three appellants imprisonment to run concurrently with effect from 8th November, 1999 plus two strokes on each count.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 1st November, 1999.
G.P. MBITO
JUDGE
V.V. PATEL
JUDGE
Please Wait. Searching ...