[2015] KEHC 3544 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence of 3 years imprisonment was reasonable and not excessive, considering the maximum penalty of 14 years for stealing stock and the appellant's adverse criminal record as evidenced by the pre-sentence and sentence review reports. The reports indicated the appellant was not suitable for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 3544 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Alex Chitiavi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 64 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- AC Mrima
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Appeals Against Sentence, Stealing Stock, Pre Sentence Reports
- 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
Alex Chitiavi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 3 years imprisonment for stealing stock was harsh and excessive.
- 2 Whether the appellant was suitable for a non-custodial sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence of 3 years imprisonment was reasonable and not excessive, considering the maximum penalty of 14 years for stealing stock and the appellant's adverse criminal record as evidenced by the pre-sentence and sentence review reports. The reports indicated the appellant was not suitable for a non-custodial sentence and recommended institutionalised rehabilitation. The sentence imposed was less than one-quarter of the statutory maximum, and in the circumstances, the court held that it was neither harsh nor excessive. Accordingly, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
- The sentence of 3 years imprisonment is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2014
ALEX CHITIAVI .................................................................... APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ..........................................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from original conviction and sentence of M.L. NABIBYA – Ag. SRM. in Criminal Case No. 292 of 2014 delivered on 23rd May, 2014 at Butali.)
JUDGMENT
Alex Chitiavi was charged before the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Butali with the offence of stealing stock. He pleaded guilty, was convicted and sentenced to serve 3 years imprisonment.
In an appeal which Alex Chitiani (the Appellant herein) preferred before this Court, he prayed that the sentence be reduced as the same was harsh and excessive.
I have carefully perused the record before the trrial Court and noted that prior to the sentencing, the Court called for a Pre-Sentence Report. That Report however recommended a custodial sentence terming the Appellant as an offender with an adverse record in criminal involvement. The Court in exercise of its discretion sentenced the Appellant aforesaid.
When the appeal came up for hearing, this Court called for a Sentence Review Report which was readily availed. The same was also not favourable to the Appellant. I have carefully perused the two Reports and noted their contents. In the absence of any contrary evidence, this Court also takes the view that the Appellant is not a suitable person for a non-custodial sentence.
The question which remains therefore is whether the sentence was excessive. The offence carries a maximum of 14 years. The Appellant was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. Through the prosecution before the trial Court urged the Court to treat the Appellant as a first offender, evidence from the two reports suggest his deep involvement in criminal activity and recommended an instittutionalised rehabilitation.
The 3 year sentence is slightly less than one-quarter of the maximum sentence provided in law. Going by the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, this Court is of a very considered view that the sentence remains reasonable if not lenient. The appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED this 23rd day of July, 2015
A. C. MRIMA
JUDGE