[2014] KEHC 7159 (KLR)
The court found that the conviction was safe based on the doctrine of recent possession, as the appellant was found in possession of a stolen phone the morning after the theft, and the complainants identified the phone. However, the sentence of seven years on each count, though within the statutory maximum, was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 7159 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Ali Mdingila; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 268 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_partially_allowed
- Judges
- GO Shikwe
- Legal Topics
- Breaking and Entering, Theft, Sentencing Principles, Recent Possession Doctrine
- 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
Ali Mdingila
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction of the appellant was supported by the evidence adduced.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive for a first offender.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the conviction was safe based on the doctrine of recent possession, as the appellant was found in possession of a stolen phone the morning after the theft, and the complainants identified the phone. However, the sentence of seven years on each count, though within the statutory maximum, was deemed harsh and excessive for a first offender. The court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to four years on each count, to run concurrently, considering the appellant's status as a first offender and the circumstances of the case.
Court Disposition
appeal_partially_allowed
Orders
- The sentence is reduced to four years imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.
- If the appellant has already served four years, he is to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2011
ALI MDINGILA …......….............................................................….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……….……....................................................…RESPONDENT
(From original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No. 25 of 2009 of the Senior Resident Magistrate's Court at Wundanyi – Hon. Munyi - RM)
JUDGMENT
The Appellant herein was convicted and Sentenced to Seven (7) years imprisonment on two counts of Breaking into a building and committing a felony contrary to section 306 (a) of the Penal Code. The Sentence was to run concurrently.
The particulars are that on the night of 16th day of January, 2009 at Kishushe Bar and Lodging – Wundanyi Taita-Taveta County jointly, with another not before the Court, broke and entered a building namely Lodging room of Wilmont Mwasi Mwasoko and committed therein a felony namely theft and did steal cash Ksh. 2,200/= and one mobile phone make Nokia 1600 valued at Ksh. 7,000/= the property of the said Wilmont Mwasi Mwaseko.
On the second Count it was alleged that on the same night and place he broke into the room of Michael Kichinda Washington and committed therein a felony namely, theft and did steal therein cash Ksh. 800/= and one mobile phone make Nokia 1600 all valued at Ksh. 5,600/= the property of the said Michael Kichinda Washington.
This appeal is largely on Sentence. The appellant seems to think that he was sentenced to fourteen (14) years on account of the two Counts. From the records it is clear that the sentence of seven (7) years on each of the two counts were to run concurrently which means that he would serve seven (7) years.
The prosecution treated the Appellant as a first offender.
The offence he was charged with carries a maximum of seven years imprisonment. It is therefore correct to state that he was Sentenced to the maximum punishment provided for by law.
Bearing in mind that he was a first offender the Sentence meted out on the appellant was harsh and excessive in the circumstances of this case.
He alleges that the Conviction was against the weight of the evidence adduced. The breaking and theft took place on the night of 16th January, 2009. The following morning the Appellant took a phone to PW 3 Clement Chara and informed him that he wanted to sell it. That evening police went to his place of work and took the phone as exhibit. Heep was also requested to record a statement and he told them that it is the appellant who had taken the phone to him saying that he wanted to sell it. The phone was identified by the complainants. The trial magistrate in her judgment did apply the doctrine of recent possession. I find that it was applicable in this case. The phones went missing on the night of 16th January, 2009 and one was recovered the following day at 7:00 a.m.
The Conviction was safe. However as argued above. The Sentence was harsh and excessive for a first offender.
It is accordingly reduced to (4) (fouryears) imprisonment on each Count. Sentence to run concurrently. In the event that he has already served the Sentence of four (4) years, the appellant to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Judgment delivered dated and signed this 11th day of February, 2014.
…....................
M. MUYA
JUDGE
11TH FEBRUARY, 2014
In the presence of:-
Mr. Tanui Learned State Counsel
The Appellant present
Court Cerk Musundi