The High Court has upheld the convictions of two men found guilty of robbery with violence during an attack on a family at their home in Kibera.
However, the court quashed their death sentences and substituted them with 30 years' imprisonment.
Simon Muasa John, also known as Christopher Simon Makau, and James Muraguri Mwangi were convicted on two counts of robbery with violence arising from the August 2023 attack.
The court heard that the two, together with an accomplice who was not before the court, gained entry into the compound after a security guard opened the gate.
Once inside, they confronted the occupants, including a grandmother and her grandson. One of the attackers was armed with a knife.
The attackers tied up the victims and locked them in a downstairs toilet before stealing cash, jewellery and other valuables.
The grandmother told the court she was dragged upstairs by her hair, assaulted and strangled as the robbers demanded to know where money was hidden before she was taken back to the toilet.
After the attackers fled, one of the victims managed to free herself and untied the others.
The family later reviewed CCTV footage, which showed the security guard opening the gate for the intruders. The recordings also captured the faces of the attackers.
The grandmother identified both appellants as two of the men who had attacked her and also recognised photographs extracted from the CCTV footage.
The trial court convicted the pair and sentenced them to death.
They appealed against both the convictions and the sentences, arguing that the prosecution evidence was insufficient and unreliable.
The appellants also contended that the trial court failed to properly consider their respective defences and maintained that the death sentence was harsh and excessive.
They asked the High Court to quash their convictions, set aside the sentences and allow the appeal.
However, Justice Dina Kavedza found the prosecution's case overwhelming and upheld the convictions.
The judge dismissed the appellants' defences as mere denials that failed to displace the consistent and corroborated prosecution evidence.
The first appellant claimed he had been framed following a business disagreement with one of the prosecution witnesses and challenged the authenticity of the CCTV footage.
He testified that he was a businessman who had been lured to a meeting on the pretext of a business opportunity before being arrested.
The second appellant denied taking part in the robbery, telling the court he had been at his home in Meru on the day of the attack.
He questioned the absence of receipts for the stolen property and argued that none of the complainants knew him before the incident.
Although he raised an alibi, he did not call any witness to support it.
The court ruled that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, while armed with a dangerous weapon, used actual violence to rob the complainants.
Although Section 296(2) of the Penal Code prescribes the death penalty for robbery with violence, the judge noted that sentencing is a discretionary judicial exercise.
Guided by recent appellate decisions, the court found that the death sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive.
The court set aside the death sentences and substituted them with 30 years' imprisonment on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently.
