[2012] KEHC 3989 (KLR)
The High Court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and that he understood the nature of the charge, as evidenced by his admission of the facts and mitigation before sentencing. However, the sentence of 14 years imprisonment was deemed manifestly excessive given the absence of previous...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3989 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Alifan Ramadhan; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 10 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part
- Judges
- CW Meoli
- Legal Topics
- Plea of Guilty, Sentencing Principles, Appeal on Sentence
- 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
Alifan Ramadhan
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and valid.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and that he understood the nature of the charge, as evidenced by his admission of the facts and mitigation before sentencing. However, the sentence of 14 years imprisonment was deemed manifestly excessive given the absence of previous convictions and the recovery of a substantial part of the stolen goods. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the original sentence and substitute it with a sentence of two years imprisonment, to run from the date of sentencing.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part
Orders
- The sentence of 14 years imprisonment is set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to two years imprisonment to run from the date of sentencing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
[if !mso]> <style> v\\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\"; mso-style-parent:\"\"; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;\"Calibri\",\"sans-serif\"; mso-bidi-\"Times New Roman\";} </style> <![endif]
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT MALINDI
Criminal Case 10 of 2011
ALIFAN RAMADHAN.....................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ................................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has appealed against the conviction and sentence handed down by the learned magistrate in Kilifi Criminal Case No. 49/2011.
2. The record of the Lower Court shows that the appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of Breaking into a Building and Committing a felony contrary to section 306(a) of the Penal Code.
His complaint that he was not given adequate time and facilities to prepare for plea appear misplaced. The record shows that he admitted the charge when it first was read out to him on 17-1-2011 and two days later admitted the facts given by the prosecutor in respect of the charge. He clearly understood the nature of the charge and even mitigated before sentence. A perusal of the proceedings shows that his plea of guilty was unequivocal (see Adan vs Republic (1973)EA.445.
3. In terms of Section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code he can only contest the issue of sentence. On that score, I agree with him and the learned State Counsel that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive considering the fact that no adverse antecedents were proved against him, such as a previous conviction. Secondly, a substantial part of the stolen goods, valued at kshs. 17,000/- were recovered.
4. In the circumstances, I am of the view the 14 years imprisonment sentence was excessive.
I set aside that sentence and instead impose a sentence of two years imprisonment to run from the date of sentencing. Delivered and signed at Malindi this13th June, 2012in the presence of the accused, Mr. Otieno for him, Mr. Naulikha for the State, cc Evans.
C. W. MEOLI
JUDGE