[2024] KEHC 8508 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate had considered the pre-sentencing report and the applicant's mitigation before imposing the sentence. There was no evidence that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that the trial court overlooked any material factor, or that it acted on a wrong principle. The High Court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 8508 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Easters Ongaria Baraza; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E014 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Stealing by Servant, Sentencing Principles, Revision Jurisdiction, Discretion of Trial Court
- 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
Easters Ongaria Baraza
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive or based on wrong principles.
- 2 Whether the applicant's rehabilitation and time served justify a non-custodial sentence on revision.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate had considered the pre-sentencing report and the applicant's mitigation before imposing the sentence. There was no evidence that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that the trial court overlooked any material factor, or that it acted on a wrong principle. The High Court therefore declined to interfere with the sentence, holding that the applicant's rehabilitation and time served did not constitute sufficient grounds for revision under the applicable legal standards.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of the sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Baraza v Republic (Criminal Revision E014 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 8508 (KLR) (15 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 8508 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision E014 of 2024
DR Kavedza, J
July 15, 2024
Between
Easters Ongaria Baraza
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged and after a full trial convicted for the offence of stealing by servant contrary to section 281 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve four (4) years imprisonment. Being aggrieved, he filed an application seeking a revision of the sentence imposed.
2. The grounds raised in support of the application are that since his incarceration, he has undergone rehabilitation. He is remaining with one year to serve. That he has been in custody since his arrest on 1st September 2022. He urged the court to review the sentence imposed a grant a non – custodial sentence.
3. This Court’s powers to review sentences are premised on Article 165 of the Constitution and section 362 of the Criminal procedure Code which provides the supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts but not over superior court. Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code outlines the powers of the High Court under article 165 of the Constitution and section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code and states how the powers are to be exercised.
4. The application is founded on the grounds that the applicant has since reformed. He now seeks a non-custodial sentence. In the pre-sentencing proceedings, the trial magistrate the considered the pre-sentencing report from the probation officer and the applicant’s mitigation. He then proceeded to sentence him to 4 years imprisonment.
5. The Court of Appeal, in Bernard Kimani Gacheru vs. Republic [2002] e-KLR stated that:“It is now settled law, following several authorities by this Court and by the High Court, that sentence is a matter that rests in the discretion of the trial court. Similarly, sentence must depend on the facts of each case. On appeal, the appellate court will not easily interfere with sentence unless, that sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case, or that the trial court overlooked some material factor, or took into account some wrong material, or acted on a wrong principle. Even if, the Appellate Court feels that the sentence is heavy and that the Appellate Court might itself not have passed that sentence, these alone are not sufficient grounds for interfering with the discretion of the trial court on sentence unless, anyone of the matters already states is shown to exist.”
6. In my view, the trial court considered the circumstances of the case and meted out the sentence at its discretion. The sentence of 4 years imposed was therefore proper in the circumstances.
7. The upshot of the above analysis is that the application for revision of the sentence consequently fails.
It is so ordered.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY 2024_______________D. KAVEDZAJUDGE