Jackson Kihara Gachucha, son of the late former Nyeri Governor Nderitu Gachagua, has denied the robbery with violence charges against him, telling the court that he was maliciously prosecuted.
Appearing before Justice Alexander Muteti on May 21, Gachucha said that key documents linked to his case and essential to his bid to challenge his conviction are being held under strict instructions left by his late father.
As such, he requested the court to grant him an escort so he could retrieve the documents and deliver them to his family.
Following his request, the High Court directed officers from the Manyani Maximum Prison to escort him in his quest to access the documents connected to his father’s estate, which he says are crucial in his attempt to overturn his 20-year prison sentence.
“If the court can give me an escort, I can hand over the documents to my family. Had I disclosed to my uncle where the documents are, I could not be here today,” Jackson told the court.
Why Jackson Kihara Was Sentenced
Jackson Kihara Gachucha was charged with robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code.
The prosecution alleged that on the night of 27 April 2015, at Kobil Petrol Station along Langata Road in Nairobi, he and another person, not before the court, while armed with a wire, attacked a taxi driver, David Gitari Kinyunjuri, and stole his Toyota Axio (registration KBS 338M) valued at Ksh 650,000.
It was further alleged that they used actual violence during the robbery.
The trial court found him guilty after a full hearing and, on April 20, 2020, sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment, backdated to the time he was first remanded.
“On my part, I am convinced that the sentence meted out against the appellant was both legal and proper. I have no reason whatsoever to interfere with the same. The sum total is that I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant herein on 20.4.2020. I dismiss the same wholly,” read part of the ruling.
Appealing the Case
Unhappy with the conviction and sentence, Jackson appealed, raising several grounds.
He argued that the identification evidence was unreliable, especially because it relied on a single witness under difficult conditions.
Jackson also claimed that the identification parade was flawed, that prosecution witnesses were not credible and were allegedly coerced, and that key witnesses were not called.
He further challenged the reliance on the doctrine of recent possession, argued that his defense was ignored, and claimed that his sentence was excessive.
Also Read: Gachagua Makes Public His Brother’s Will, Reveals Beneficiaries of Multi-Billion Shilling Empire
The State opposed the appeal, maintaining that the complainant clearly identified the appellant during the incident at a well-lit petrol station and later confirmed this at an identification parade.
Further, the prosecution argued that the doctrine of recent possession applied because the stolen vehicle was recovered and linked to the appellant.
The High Court re-evaluated all the evidence as required by law and confirmed that the offence of robbery with violence had clearly been proved.
The court noted that the complainant was attacked by two men, tied up, and robbed of his vehicle, satisfying the legal elements of the offence.
Also Read: How Late Nderitu Gachagua Rose from Quantity Surveyor to Billionaire
Court Upholds Sentencing
On identification, the court found that the complainant had sufficient opportunity to see the appellant at the petrol station, where they interacted and negotiated the fare in a well-lit environment.
At the same time, the court rejected claims that witnesses were coerced, finding no evidence to support such allegations.
It also held that the prosecution was not required to call every possible witness, especially where no specific missing witness was identified.
On the doctrine of recent possession, the court found that the stolen vehicle was recovered and linked to the appellant, supporting the inference that he was connected to the robbery.
The appellant’s defence, which mainly denied involvement and challenged the investigation process, was found to be unconvincing and did not dislodge the prosecution’s case.
Hence, the High Court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and accordingly upheld the conviction, affirmed the 20-year sentence, and dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
