[1992] KEHC 77 (KLR)
The court held that since the appellant's plea of guilty was clear and unequivocal, section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code precluded any appeal against the conviction. Furthermore, the sentence of 15 months imprisonment for the offence of stealing under section 275 of the Penal Code was neither harsh nor...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1992] KEHC 77 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Abdalla; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 549 of 1992
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Plea of Guilty, Appeal Against Conviction, Sentence Review, Criminal Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abdalla
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an appeal lies against a conviction based on a clear and unequivocal plea of guilty.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the appellant's plea of guilty was clear and unequivocal, section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code precluded any appeal against the conviction. Furthermore, the sentence of 15 months imprisonment for the offence of stealing under section 275 of the Penal Code was neither harsh nor excessive. There was no legal basis to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
8 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CRIM APP 549 OF 92
Abdalla v Republic
Mbaluto J March 8, 1992,
Mbaluto J delivered the following Judgment.
The appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty to the charge of stealing contrary to section 275 of the Penal code and was sentence to 15 months imprisonment. He now appeals to this court against conviction and sentence. The appellant’s plea was clear and unequivocal and in those circumstances no appeal lies against conviction (see section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The sentence was neither harsh nor excessive and there is no basis for interfering. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.