[2024] KEHC 12334 (KLR)
The court held that since the applicant was convicted of defilement of two different minors on different occasions, the offences did not arise from a single transaction. Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribes that sentences for offences committed on different occasions should run consecutively unless...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 12334 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Silas Anami; Respondent: ODPP
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E043 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- PJO Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, Defilement Offences
- 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
Silas Anami
Applicant
ODPP
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in ordering the applicant's sentences to run consecutively rather than concurrently.
- 2 Whether the circumstances of the offences warranted concurrent or consecutive sentences under section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the applicant was convicted of defilement of two different minors on different occasions, the offences did not arise from a single transaction. Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribes that sentences for offences committed on different occasions should run consecutively unless the court orders otherwise. The trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences was therefore lawful, regular, and appropriate in the circumstances. There was no illegality or irregularity to warrant revision of the sentence.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Anami v ODDP (Criminal Revision E043 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 12334 (KLR) (30 September 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 12334 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Criminal Revision E043 of 2023
PJO Otieno, J
September 30, 2024
Between
Silas Anami
Applicant
and
ODPP
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant herein was tried and convicted of two counts of defilement of two minors, aged 8 and 12 years, on diverse dates between December 2019 and 6th April 2020. Upon conviction he was sentenced to a prison term of 5 years on each of the two counts. The sentences were decreed to run concurrently.
2. It is the consecutive nature of the sentence which has aggrieved the applicant who seeks the court’s intervention, in revision, so that instead of running consecutively, the sentences be made to run concurrently.
3. On revision, the confines itself to the parameters set by sections 362 and 364 and of the Criminal Procedure Code on the extent and manner of intervention.
4. Here, the request is limited to manner the sentence is to run. Section 14 of the criminal l procedure Code ordains that sentences run consecutively unless the trial court orders otherwise. In fact, where there is no express indication of the manner of enforcement of the several sentences imposed, the law deems such several sentences to run consecutively.
5. In Peter Mbugua Kabui v Republic [2016] eKLR the court interpreted section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to permit that sentences run consecutively where one is convicted of two or more distinct offenses at the same trial. However, where the offenses are committed at the same in a single transaction, even if the offenses are in a series, a concurrent sentence is the appropriate one to impose1. 1
6. In the context of this matter the Applicant was charged and convicted of defilement of two different minors and on different occasions. The offences were never committed to merit making the sentences run concurrently.
7. To that extent, the trial court cannot be faulted for having imposed the consecutive sentences. The sentence is neither illegal nor irregular to merit being revised.
8. Accordingly, therefore, the application for revision lacks merit and is dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024PATRICK J O OTIENOJUDGE