[2013] KEHC 1806 (KLR)
The court found that, although the offence was serious, the value of the stolen property was relatively low (Kshs. 6,000) and the appellant was a first offender who pleaded guilty. The trial court's sentence of three years imprisonment was deemed harsh and excessive in the circumstances. Exercising its powers under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 1806 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Barnabas Amondi; Respondent: Republic of Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 115 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- sentence reduced on appeal
- Judges
- SM Kibunja
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, First Offender Status, Plea of Guilty, Mitigation of 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
Barnabas Amondi
Appellant
Republic of Kenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of three years imprisonment imposed on the appellant was harsh and excessive given the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the appellant's status as a first offender and the value of the stolen property warranted a reduction of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although the offence was serious, the value of the stolen property was relatively low (Kshs. 6,000) and the appellant was a first offender who pleaded guilty. The trial court's sentence of three years imprisonment was deemed harsh and excessive in the circumstances. Exercising its powers under section 354(3)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellate court reduced the sentence to one year imprisonment, holding that a lesser sentence was more appropriate given the mitigating factors.
Court Disposition
sentence reduced on appeal
Orders
- The sentence of three years imprisonment is set aside and substituted with a sentence of one year imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA.
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.115 OF 2012.
BARNABAS AMONDI …………………………………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC OF KENYA……………………………………..RESPONDENT.
(BEING AN APPEAL ON CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FROM ORIGINAL CRIMINALCASE NO. 2172 OF 2012. IN BUSIA LAW COURT.)
J U D G M E N T.
The Appellant was arraigned before the trial court on 10th December, 2012 for the offence breaking into a building and committing a felony contrary to section 306 (a) of the Penal Code in that on the night of 24th November, 2012 at Sigome, Sikoma sub-location jointly with others not before the court, broke and entered into a building,namely store of Francis Makokha and did steal from therein one wheelbarrow, 2 bags of cement and one bag of 50kg of lime, all valued Kshs.6,000/= the property of the said Francis Makokha. The Appellant pleaded guilty, and admitted the facts as true.
A close look of the proceedings, do not show whether the prosecution presented before the trial court any previous record of the Appellant.The Appellant made his mitigation asking the court to be lenient. The learned trial Magistrate, after considering the mitigation observed that the offence was serious and deserved a deterrent sentence. He proceeded to sentence the Appellant to three years imprisonment.
The Appellant not being satisfied with the sentence, filed his appeal on 9th December, 2012. The appeal is based on the following three grounds.
That he pleaded guilty to the charge.
That he is a 1st offender.
That he is the sole bread winner of his young family.
During the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant informed the court that his wife and child left him after he was arrested and convicted in this case. He asked the court to reduce the sentence to either one or two years imprisonment. The appeal was opposed by the state who submitted that the offence the Appellant was convicted on, carries a maximum jail sentence of seven years and the three years was therefore not harsh.
I have considered the grounds of appeal and the submissions by the state and considering the value of the property stolen being only Kshs. 6000/= and the fact that the Appellant is a first offender, I am of the view a sentence of three (3) years imprisonment is not only on the higher side but harsh. I therefore under section 354 (3) (a) (i) of the Criminal Procedure Code reduce the three year imprisonment sentence to (1) year imprisonment.
It so ordered.
S.M KIBUNJA
JUDGE
Delivered and dated this…17TH…day of OCTOBE, 2013
In the presence of:
JUDGE.