Supreme Court Upholds 30-Year Sentence in Robbery with Violence Criminal Case: No Constitutional Violations Found

Background

In this case, Goddrick Simiyu Wanga appealed to the Supreme Court of Kenya, challenging a 30-year prison sentence for two counts of robbery with violence. The incident occurred on December 4, 2013, in Kilifi County, where Wanga and his accomplices robbed Yul Wenger and his wife, Heike Wenger, of valuables worth Kshs. 12,300,000/- while threatening them with a pistol. Initially, the trial court convicted Wanga and sentenced him to death, but this was later reduced to 30 years imprisonment by the High Court.

Litigation History

1. Trial Court: The Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kilifi convicted Wanga based on witness identification, the doctrine of recent possession, and circumstantial evidence. Wanga was sentenced to death.
2. High Court: Wanga appealed, arguing that the death sentence was illegal, the charges were defective, and the evidence was contradictory. The High Court dismissed the appeal but substituted the death sentence with a 30-year prison term, referencing the Muruatetu case, which declared the mandatory death penalty for murder unconstitutional.
3. Court of Appeal: Wanga further appealed, questioning the sufficiency of evidence and the severity of the sentence. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and the 30-year sentence.

Supreme Court Appeal

Wanga appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues related to the violation of his rights under Articles 49 and 50 of the Constitution, the propriety of the charges, and the legality of the sentence. He argued that:

1. His right to a fair trial was violated, including his right to counsel and the right to challenge evidence.
2. The courts below failed to uphold constitutional and international human rights standards.
3. The sentence imposed was excessive and harsh, and the doctrine of recent possession was misapplied.

Issues for Determination

• Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
• Whether Wanga’s rights under Articles 49 and 50 of the Constitution were violated.

1. The issues Wanga raised were not constitutional matters and did not fall within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution.
2. The case was primarily about factual determinations and the application of settled law, not the interpretation or application of constitutional provisions.
3. The court reiterated that the decision in Muruatetu case’s on the mandatory death sentence applied only to murder cases under Sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code, not to robbery with violence under Section 296(2). The Supreme Court also upheld the 30-year sentence, noting that it was not excessive.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Wanga v. Republic highlights the limitations of its appellate jurisdiction, emphasizing that only cases involving significant constitutional interpretation or application issues can be entertained. The court also clarified the scope of the Muruatetu decision, reinforcing that it does not broadly apply to all mandatory or minimum sentences.