John Mwangi Njoroge v Republic [2022] KEHC 2494 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAKURU

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2018

JOHN MWANGI NJOROGE..................................................................APPELLANT

VERSUS

REPUBLIC...............................................................................................RESPONDENT

(BEING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF HON. J.BKALO (CM)

DATED 31ST AUGUST 2018 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 409 OF 2014)

JUDGEMENT

1. The appellant was charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge were that on the 6th and 7th day of April 2018 at Sigotik area, Kihingo Division, Njoro Sub- county within Nakuru county jointly with four others robbed JOSEPH MWANGI MUCAMI, of motor vehicle registration number KBK 710Y Toyota NZE121, cellphone make Nokia Anoking; IMEI Number 3568800402272986 and 3568800402272994 and driving licence C of C number 356360(KTC038) and at or immediately before or immediately after the time of such robbery did actual violence to the said JOSEPH MWANGI MUCAMI.

2. When the matter came up for hearing the appellant amended his grounds of appeal and instead appealed on sentence only.

3. The appellant was convicted and sentence to 25 years’ imprisonment. He has raised several grounds of appeal in his petition notably that the sentence of 25 years was excessive in the circumstance considering the favorable probation reports; that during his conviction and sentence he was a first offender; that he is a family man whose life and that of his family has been greatly affected by the imprisonment; that he is fully reformed having taken full advantage of rehabilitation programs offered in the prison facility and that he is remorseful and repentant.

4. In his mitigation he states that he was a first offender a fact which the trial court ought to have taken into consideration. That in line with the judiciary sentencing policy the court ought to take the advantage of the same and order the reduction of his sentence to 16 years and the reminder he be allowed to serve under probation.

5. He stated that he has learn other trades and skills while in prison including biblical studies which he would use while outside the prison doors.

6. The appellant relied on the case of Doughlas Muthaura Ntoribi v. Republic (2018) eKLR which emphasized the fact that a good prison ought to always reform the convicts.

7. The court has perused the appeal, the facts in particular leading to the robbery and how the deceased met his death in the most heinous way. The offence was premeditated by the appellants and his co-accused. The deceased a taxi driver was robbed of his car, killed by hanging and his vehicle stolen and recovered in Narok. In fact, it was through the aid of the tracking system that the same was recovered, otherwise it would not have been possible.

8. The court whereas it agrees on the principles espoused in the 2016 judiciary sentencing policy, the same are not blanket guidelines. Each case ought to be determined independently. In this regard i find that the execution by the appellant and his friends were meticulous. The death of the victim was well schemed and not purely coincidental.

9. In the premises, the period of 25 years in my view was sufficient and efficacious. It must not be lost that the appellant deserved a death penalty and not the period granted by the trial court. This however is discretional. This court agrees with the trial court nonetheless.

10. The appeal and the application is unmeritorious and the same is hereby dismissed.

DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022.

H K CHEMITEI.

JUDGE