THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION PETITION NO. 5 OF 2018 ISAAC SAMUEL KILONZI............................................PETITIONER VERSUS THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS....RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner herein was charged and convicted for the offence of robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2). That on the night of 21/10.2010 the Petitioner jointly with others not before court posing as police officers while armed with dangerous weapons namely a pistol, ironbars and hammers, attacked the victims, disarmed them and later tied them with ropes and proceeded to brake inside the premises and stole a computer monitor and cash totaling Kshs. 40,000/= property of the Matuga Constituency Development Fund. 2. The Petitioner was in the company of 5 others and was armed with dangerous weapons, which they used to threaten/assault some of the complaints. The incident happened at night. 3. Mr. Fedha. Learned counsel for the prosecution submitted that the Petitioner and others were armed with dangerous weapons, namely pistol, iron bars and hammers which they used to attach their victims, and should be sentenced to 18 years to serve as a warning to would be robbers. 4. The Petitioner has been in jail for 8 years. I have considered the Petitioner’s mitigation and herewith set aside the death sentence, and in place thereof, I jail the Petitioner for a term of 16 years from the date of arrest. 5. Right of appeal in 14 days. Dated, Signed and Delivered at Mombasa this 12th day of March, 2020. E. K. O. OGOLA JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Fedha for DPP Petitioner in person Mr. Wangila holding brief Wamotsa for Petitioner Mr. Kaunda Court Assistant
Original judgment
The Republic of Kenya v The Director of Public Prosecutions
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.