https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8365

Kitengo alias Matengo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E015 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8365 (KLR) (12 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8365 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kisumu Miscellaneous Criminal Application E015 of 2026 A Mabeya, J June 12, 2026 Between Abdalla Otieno Kitengo Alias Matengo Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.By a motion on notice dated 29/1/2025, Abdalla Otieno Kitengo alias Matengo applied that the sentence of 1 year meted out on him in Nyando Criminal Case No. 212 of 2021 – Republic vs Abdalla Otieno Kitengo alias Matengo be made to run concurrently with the 15 years’ sentence meted out on him in Nyando Criminal Case No. E017 of 2021 – Republic vs Abdalla Otieno Kitengo. 2.In his supporting affidavit sworn on 29/1/2025, he disclosed that in Nyando Criminal Case No. E017 of 2021 he had been charged, tried and convicted with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act. He was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. On the other hand, in Nyando Criminal Case No. E017 of 2021, he had been charged, tried and convicted with the offence of obtaining registration by false pretence under section 320 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment. 3.Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides: -“(1)Subject to subsection (3), when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more distinct offences, the court may sentence him, for those offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which the court is competent to impose;and those punishments when consisting of imprisonment shall commence the one after the expiration of the other in the order the court may direct, unless the court directs that the punishments shall run concurrently.(2)In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the court, by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to impose on conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher court.(3)Except in cases to which section 7(1) applies, nothing in this section shall authorize a subordinate court to pass, on any person at one trial, consecutive sentences—(a)of imprisonment which amount in the aggregate to more than fourteen years, or twice the amount of imprisonment which the court, in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction, is competent to impose, whichever is the less; or(b)of fines which amount in the aggregate to more than twice the amount which the court is so competent to impose.(4)For the purposes of appeal, the aggregate of consecutive sentences imposed under this section in case of convictions for several offences at one trial shall be deemed to be a single sentence.” 4.The court has the discretion to order sentences to run concurrently. This will ordinarily be in instances where a series of offences are committed in a single transaction. However, where trials are separately held on separate and distinct offences committed separately, the sentences shall run consecutively. 5.In the present case, the offences did not arise from the same transaction. The trials were separate and did not emanate from a series of events. They were from separate events. 6.Accordingly, the application is without merit and is hereby dismissed.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.A. MABEYA, FCIArbJUDGE