[2005] KEHC 2292 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 2292 (KLR)

The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the conviction of both appellants for the offence of store breaking and stealing, as they were employed as watchmen at the factory and were on duty during the time of the offence. The trial magistrate's conviction was therefore proper....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 2292 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Benson Mitobio Gitau; Appellant: Simon Kimani Macharia; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 182 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; sentence varied.
Legal Topics
Store Breaking, Stealing, Sentencing, Penal Code Offences
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Store Breaking Stealing Sentencing Penal Code Offences

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benson Mitobio Gitau

Appellant

Simon Kimani Macharia

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the evidence adduced was sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellants for store breaking and stealing.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the conviction of both appellants for the offence of store breaking and stealing, as they were employed as watchmen at the factory and were on duty during the time of the offence. The trial magistrate's conviction was therefore proper. However, the appellate court found it appropriate to interfere with the sentence by setting aside the corporal punishment (three strokes of the cane) and reducing the custodial sentence to allow for the immediate release of the appellants, considering the time already served.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; sentence varied.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
  • The sentence of five years imprisonment is reduced to a period enabling the appellants' release on 2nd July, 2005.