Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | crim app 926 of 01 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | FRANCIS KARANJA MWANGI vs REPUBLIC |
| Date Delivered: | 02 Apr 2003 |
| Case Class: | Criminal |
| Court: | High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) |
| Case Action: | |
| Judge(s): | Robert Mugo Mutitu |
| Citation: | FRANCIS KARANJA MWANGI vs REPUBLIC[2003] eKLR |
| 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 HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.926 OF 2001
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.2425 of 1999
of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nairobi)
FRANCIS KARANJA MWANGI )……………………….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………………………RESPONDENT
CONSOLIDATED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.927 OF 2001
(From Original Conviction and Sentence In Criminal Case 2425
of 1999 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nairobi)
PHILIP MBONDO KIOKO ……………………………….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……………………………………………. RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
The two appellants namely Francis Karanja Mwangi and Philip Kioko Mbondo were convicted and sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment on three counts of being in possession of a firearm without a firearms certificate contrary to section 4 (2) of Cap.114 of the Laws of Kenya. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Both appellants brought this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence at the time of arguing their appeal both appellants abandoned their appeal against conviction. They both challenged the sentence imposed against them arguing that it was too harsh. They both argued that the sentence be reduced.
Mr. Kivihya for the state opposed their plea and argued that the sentence is not manifestly excessive.
I have perused the trial magistrate’s record as it relates to sentencing. I have noted that the trial magistrate took into account the fact that the two appellants had been in custody for a long time before sentencing them. She also took their plea in mitigation. Taking everything into account it is my considered view that the sentence imposed upon the appellants was appropriately arrived at and well considered. I will not therefore interfere with the sentence imposed upon the appellants. I dismiss the appellants appeal against the sentence accordingly.
R.M. MUTITU
JUDGE
2/4/2003
Delivered in open court in the presence of the two appellants and in the presence of Mr. Kivihya for the state.
…………………………
R.M. MUTITU
JUDGE
2/4/2003
Please Wait. Searching ...