[2016] KEHC 2186 (KLR)
The court found that since the offences were similar, committed on the same date, and arose from the same transaction, the sentences should run concurrently. The trial court's order for consecutive sentences was therefore set aside. The court exercised its discretion in line with established legal principles and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2186 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Alex Inahi Vugusu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 76 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Sentences, Plea of Guilty, Mitigation, Judicial Discretion
- 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 Inahi Vugusu
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in ordering the sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently.
- 2 Whether the offences, being similar and arising from the same transaction, warranted concurrent sentences.
- 3 Whether the appellant's plea of guilty and status as a first offender should have influenced the sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the offences were similar, committed on the same date, and arose from the same transaction, the sentences should run concurrently. The trial court's order for consecutive sentences was therefore set aside. The court exercised its discretion in line with established legal principles and the unopposed position of the State, holding that the sentences should run concurrently from the date of the original judgment.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The sentences pronounced by the trial court shall run concurrently from the date of the judgment in the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
H.C.CR.A 76 OF 2013
ALEX INAHI VUGUSU ...………..……....................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ...........................................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and Sentence of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Machakos by Hon. E.K. Too (Ag. SRM)) in Criminal Case No. 105 of 2013 dated 26th February 2013)
************************************
(Before E. Ogola J)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1. The Appellant, Alex Inahi Vugusu, was charged with the offence of Shop BreakingandCommitting a Felony contrary to Section 300 (a) of the Penal Code. The Appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty to serve 4 years imprisonment on each of the three counts to run consecutively.
2. Being not satisfied with the sentencing to run consecutively, the Appellant has filed this appeal arguing the following grounds:-
i. That the offences in question were committed by the same persons, at the same time and at the samelocus in quo.
ii. That the offences are related in nature and substance.
iii. That the offences were prosecuted under the same file number, in the same court, at the same time and by the same magistrate.
3. The Appellant also submitted that he has mitigating factors including the fact that he pleaded guilty to the charges and that he is a first offender, with wife, children and an elderly mother to take care of.
4. The Appellant is remorseful and undertakes not to engage in any criminal activities in future. The Appellant accordingly asks that his sentences do run concurrently and to take effect from the original pronouncement date.
5. The State does not oppose the appeal for the sentences to run concurrently.
6. I have considered the appeal.
7. Section 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 states that:- “any court may pass a lawful sentence combining any of the sentences which it is authorized by law to pass”. The magistrates have discretion on the type of sentence depending on the length of sentence, nature of the offence, the records of the accused, demeanor of the accused to say the least. The sentence ought to be lawful and not excessive.
8. It is trite law that in cases where a person has been charged and convicted of two or more counts involving the same transaction in charge sheet or information or a trial, the practice is to direct that the sentence runs concurrently. One would argue that the Complainants are different, but the offence is similar and committed at the same date, may be time is what differed. The transaction is the same and offence the same.
9. This court finds that the appeal is merited. The sentences pronounced herein by the trial court shall run concurrently from the date of the judgment in the trial court.
That is the judgment of the court.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 4TH day of OCTOBER, 2016.
………………………………………
E. OGOLA
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Mr. Machogu for State
Court Assistant - Mr. Munyao