A chilling robbery and assault incident that occurred in Bomet town in August 2020 came back to life in court as the High Court upheld a 20-year prison sentence against Elijah Kiprotich, alias Telel, who was convicted of robbery with violence and causing grievous harm.
The court confirmed that Kiprotich, in the company of an accomplice, violently attacked and robbed a man identified as Cheruiyot Kiprotich at around 8:30pm on the fateful day near Soi Garage within Bomet Township.
The verdict marks the end of a legal journey that began nearly five years ago, a journey that saw the victim recount a traumatic night that left him physically and emotionally scarred.
The night of terror
According to court records, Cheruiyot was walking through Bomet Township carrying his belongings when he encountered the attackers.
The items he had included were a green briefcase with clothes, black leather shoes, one kg of sugar, one kg of tea leaves, bar soap, Sh500 in cash, and a sack of Irish potatoes—all valued at Sh3,950.
In harrowing testimony before the Magistrate’s Court in 2022, Cheruiyot described how he was accosted by two men who beat him before making away with his possessions.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Julius Ng’arng’ar, noted:
“I have gone through the record, the evidence adduced, and the witness testimonies and I clearly note the offence points at the appellant glaringly.”
Cheruiyot’s account was pivotal to the case.
Despite his injuries, he was able to identify some of his belongings later recovered from the accused, which were critical in linking Kiprotich to the crime.
Items recovered
During the investigation, law enforcement recovered a green briefcase, a T-shirt, and 25 kilograms of Irish potatoes in the possession of the accused.
These items were identified by Cheruiyot as part of the stolen property.
In the alternative charge, Kiprotich was accused of handling stolen property “otherwise than in the course of stealing,” with knowledge that the goods were unlawfully obtained.
The court found this to further support the claim that Kiprotich had taken part in the robbery.
Victim left with grievous harm
Beyond the theft, the violence inflicted on Cheruiyot formed the basis of a second charge—grievous harm.
The court heard how the attack left him with injuries significant enough to alter the course of his daily life.
Medical evidence presented during the trial corroborated his injuries, and witnesses detailed the aftermath of the incident, further confirming the violent nature of the encounter.
Justice Ng’arng’ar highlighted that Kiprotich and his accomplice “wounded the victim/complainant in this case”.
This is a factor that weighed heavily in affirming the conviction under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code, which provides for more severe punishment in cases involving violence.
The appeal
In November 2022, Kiprotich lodged an appeal, not challenging the conviction but the sentence itself.
Through his petition, he argued that the 20-year term handed down by the Magistrate’s Court was excessive and did not consider his mitigating factors adequately.
The appeal leaned heavily on the argument that the sentencing failed to meet the objectives outlined in Kenya’s Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2016.
These objectives include deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation and restorative justice.
The appellant’s plea was that while the sentence was legal, it was too harsh to fulfil the goal of reintegration and rehabilitation.
Court’s rebuttal
Justice Ng’arng’ar, however, disagreed.
He noted that the trial magistrate had indeed considered Kiprotich’s mitigating submissions before imposing the 20-year sentence.
“The trial court, while taking into consideration the mitigating factors, exercised its discretion and sentenced the Appellant to 20 years’ imprisonment,” he ruled.
He further emphasised that the sentence was within the legal limits provided by law and was in fact not the maximum; robbery with violence under Section 296(2) is punishable by death.
“The 20 years meted out is not the maximum sentence prescribed by law,” the judge stated, reinforcing that the sentence fell well within judicial discretion, particularly given the violent nature of the crime.
The law
Under Section 295 of the Penal Code, robbery is defined as stealing something while using or threatening to use violence to obtain or retain the item.
Section 296(2) intensifies the punishment when the robber is armed, in company with others, or uses physical violence—conditions all met in Kiprotich’s case.
The court referred to this statute, confirming that the facts proved during the trial aligned fully with the offence of robbery with violence, especially since the victim was physically assaulted and valuables taken.
Mitigation revisited
While the court did review Kiprotich’s mitigation, it found no basis to alter the original ruling.
In referencing legal precedent, the court explained that mitigation does not excuse the offence but may lessen the degree of punishment if circumstances permit.
Citing a precedent court, the judge explained that mitigation involves alleviating the severity of punishment based on fairness and mercy.
But in this case, the court found the circumstances too grave to allow for leniency.
Justice delivered
In his final remarks, Justice Ng’arng’ar stated;
“I find that the trial court’s determination was sound, judicious and based on the evidence on record, and there is no sound reason to interfere with the trial court’s conviction and sentence.”
With those words, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed Kiprotich’s 20-year jail term.
