The Court of Appeal in Nairobi, Kenya, has upheld the life imprisonment of Moses Kamau Ngigi, who was found guilty of robbery with violence and theft in a case stemming from a 2008 home invasion in Kiambu County.
In its judgment delivered by a three-judge bench, the court dismissed Ngigi’s appeal, finding no fault in the trial and High Court’s reliance on the doctrine of recent possession.
Robbery in Kiambu
Ngigi was sentenced to death for two counts of robbery with violence and was also convicted of stealing.
The charges arose from a predawn robbery on April 23, 2008, during which six armed men stopped trader Prisca Njeri Gitau and her watchman as she left for the market.
Also Read: Court Orders Blogger Ndiang’ui Kinyagia to Submit Affidavit in 14 Days
The gang then forced them back to Prisca’s house, took an Ericson mobile phone from Bonface Ngui, and two robbers went with Prisca into her bedroom, where she handed over Ksh40,000.
The victims raised an alarm, attracting David Kuria Gitau, Prisca’s brother and their neighbour, who switched on his alarm.
Sergeant Fredrick Namu and Corporal George Odhiambo, who were on patrol, responded, spoke to the victims, and obtained descriptions of the attackers.
The case turned on Ngigi’s arrest shortly after the incident. Police, acting on a tip from the victims, arrested him at a nearby bus stop.
He was found in possession of a Nokia 1600 mobile phone in his pocket. The suspects were taken back to the scene, where Prisca identified the appellant.
Moses Ngigi later led police to his house, where the stolen gas cylinder, TV set, and pangas allegedly used in the robbery were recovered.
Also recovered was a mountain bike previously stolen from David Kuria Gitau.
Life Imprisonment Appeal (through Mr. Kogi)
Moses Ngigi raised five grounds of appeal in his memorandum dated January 25, 2022:
- High Court relied on unsubstantiated evidence regarding the recovery of stolen items.
- High Court failed to discharge its mandate as a first appellate court.
- High Court erred in convicting without evidence of the weapons used.
- Evidence of visual identification was not free from error.
- High Court erred in convicting based on the manner of arrest.
In his appeal, Ngigi challenged the reliability of the identification evidence and claimed that the recovery of stolen items did not justify the application of the doctrine of recent possession.
He also pointed to discrepancies in the charge sheet, particularly the model of the mobile phone listed.
However, the appellate judges — Justices Kiage, Jamila Mohammed, and Korir — ruled that the misdescription of the phone did not affect the integrity of the charges.
They strongly pointed out that the recovery of other stolen goods within an hour of the robbery, coupled with Ngigi’s failure to offer a reasonable explanation for possessing them, strongly supported the conviction.
Proof of Robbery with Violence
Moses Ngigi hinted that the offense of robbery with violence was not proved.
Also Read: Relief for MPs as Court of Appeal Issues Ruling on Roads Funding
The Court outlined the ingredients of robbery with violence under section 296(2) of the Penal Code, as defined in Johana Ndungu vs. Republic: the essential ingredient is the use or threat of actual violence to further stealing.
The offense is established if any one of three circumstances is proven:
- The offender is armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon.
- The offender is in the company of one or more other persons.
- The offender wounds, beats, strikes, or uses any other violence against any person at or immediately before or after the robbery
The Court found that all three ingredients were present and proved, dismissing Ngigi’s argument about a lack of evidence for the weapons used.
The court also noted that Ngigi had himself led police to the items, and that identification was further reinforced by distinctive marks on the recovered TV set.
Testimony from Ngigi’s father, who had initially been a co-accused, confirmed the police recovery narrative.
The judges ruled that all legal elements of robbery with violence were satisfied as the attackers were armed, operated in a group, and threatened violence, and therefore dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
The life imprisonment sentence imposed upon Ngigi was not a subject of this appeal, so the Court made no comments on it.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
