[1998] KECA 77 (KLR)

[1998] KECA 77 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that it could not interfere with the severity of the sentence on a second appeal where the sentence was legal and properly awarded, especially given the extreme violence involved in the robbery. Furthermore, although the offences were similar in nature, they were not part of a single complex...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] KECA 77 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Abdallah Chibindo Nyasi; Respondent: Republic
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 26 of 1998
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court Conviction and Sentence Confirmation
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
RO Kwach, E Owuor
Legal Topics
Robbery, Sentencing, Concurrent Sentences, Corporal Punishment
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Robbery Sentencing Concurrent Sentences Corporal Punishment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdallah Chibindo Nyasi

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court Conviction and Sentence Confirmation

  1. 1 Whether the sentence in Criminal Case No. 3405 of 1990 should be ordered to run concurrently with that in Criminal Case No. 3361 of 1990.
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal can interfere with the severity of sentence on a second appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that it could not interfere with the severity of the sentence on a second appeal where the sentence was legal and properly awarded, especially given the extreme violence involved in the robbery. Furthermore, although the offences were similar in nature, they were not part of a single complex transaction and were separated in time. Therefore, there was no legal basis to order that the sentences be served concurrently. The appeal was dismissed and the sentences were to be served consecutively.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Sentences to be served consecutively as previously ordered.