[2017] KEHC 7818 (KLR)
The court found that the two counts of stock theft arose from the same transaction, as both sheep were stolen at the same time from the same complainant, and one was found in the appellant's possession. The trial court did not provide reasons for ordering the sentences to run consecutively. Applying established...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 7818 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Andrew Kariithi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 32 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_partially_allowed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Sentences, Stock Theft, First Offender, Penal Code Section 278
- 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
Andrew Kariithi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in ordering the sentences for two counts of stock theft to run consecutively instead of concurrently.
- 2 Whether the appellant's status as a first offender and his reformation warranted interference with the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the two counts of stock theft arose from the same transaction, as both sheep were stolen at the same time from the same complainant, and one was found in the appellant's possession. The trial court did not provide reasons for ordering the sentences to run consecutively. Applying established legal principles, the High Court held that sentences for offences committed in one transaction should run concurrently unless exceptional circumstances are shown. No such circumstances were present. Therefore, the sentences should run concurrently, and the appeal was allowed to that extent.
Court Disposition
appeal_partially_allowed
Orders
- The sentences of two years and three years imprisonment imposed on the appellant to run concurrently.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2016
ANDREW KARIITHI………………………..APPELLANT
versus
REPUBLIC………………………….........RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence in Nanyuki Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 390 of 2013 by Hon. V. K. KIPTOON – Senior Resident Magistrate on 2nd April 2014)
JUDGMENT
1. ANDREW KARIITHI (Kariithi)was charged and convicted, after trial before the Nanyuki Chief Magistrate’s Court, with two offences of stealing stock contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code Cap 63. The offence relate to stealing of two sheep. The trial court convicted Kariithi on the two counts and sentences him to 2 years imprisonment on the first count and 3 years imprisonment on second count. Those sentences were ordered to run consecutively. Kariithi has appealed against those sentences.
2. His appeal is grounded on the fact that Kariithi was a first offender; he has attained training in carpentry in which he has achieved grade one; and that he is reformed.
3. The learned Senior Principal Prosecuting Counsel Mr. Tanui opposed the appeal on the ground that Kariithi was convicted on two counts, the offences of which attract a maximum sentence of 14 years. In that regard learned counsel submitted that the trial court’s sentence was lenient.
4. In this court’s view there is no basis for interfering with the trial court’s sentence. What however is of concern to this court is that the trial court ordered for the two sentences to run consecutively without assigning any reason for that order. The two counts relate to the same transaction. The complainant lost his two sheep at the same time and one of those sheep was later found in possession of Kariithi. The principle of law in sentencing is that sentence should run concurrently where the offences committed are of one transaction. Justice J. Kamau in the case VENANT MWACHANYA V REPUBLIC (2016) eKLRin considering that principle stated thus:-
“This principle was also expounded in the case of Ng’ang’a vs Republic (1981) KLR 530 and Ondiek vs Republic (1981) KLR 430 where the common thread was that concurrent sentences should be awarded for offences committed in one criminal transaction unless exceptional circumstances prevail.”
5. With the above in mind this court orders the trial court’s sentence of two years on the first count and three years on the second count to run concurrently. To that extent the appellant’s appeal succeeds.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
CORAM
Before Justice Mary Kasango
Court Assistant: Njue
Appellant: Andrew Kariithi ............................
For the State: …...............................................
COURT
Judgment delivered in open court.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE