[2005] KEHC 2154 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and properly taken, thus upholding the conviction. On sentence, the court considered the appellant's remorse, evidence of reformation, and the fact that he had served over half of his sentence. The court determined that the period already served...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2154 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Philip Kipkorir Langat; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 172 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- sentence_commuted_to_period_served_and_release_ordered
- Legal Topics
- Stock Theft, Sentencing, Plea of Guilty, Mitigation, Reformation, Sentence Commutation
- 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
Philip Kipkorir Langat
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant, who pleaded guilty to stock theft, was excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and properly taken.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and properly taken, thus upholding the conviction. On sentence, the court considered the appellant's remorse, evidence of reformation, and the fact that he had served over half of his sentence. The court determined that the period already served constituted sufficient punishment in the circumstances, and that further incarceration was unnecessary. Consequently, the sentence was commuted to the period already served, and the appellant was ordered to be released unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
sentence_commuted_to_period_served_and_release_ordered
Orders
- The appellant's sentence is commuted to the period already served.
- The appellant is ordered to be set at liberty from prison unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL APPEAL 172 OF 2003 (From original conviction and sentence of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Molo in Criminal Case No. 818 of 2003 R K KIRUI)
PHILIP K. LANGAT…………………...………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………………RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant, Philip Kipkorir Langat, was charged with the offence of stealing stock contrary to Section 278 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that on the night of the 8th and 9th April 2003 at Ainamoi village, Olenguruone, Nakuru District, the appellant together with another not before court, stole one cow valued at Kshs 12,000/=, the property of Bernard Kipkurui Langat. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge when he was arraigned before the trial magistrate’s court. He was convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to serve four years imprisonment. The appellant was aggrieved by his conviction and sentence and has appealed to this court.
At the hearing of the appeal, although the appellant had appealed against both conviction and sentence, he abandoned his appeal against conviction. Instead, the appellant pleaded for the leniency of the court on sentence. He submitted that he had been in prison since the 14th of April 2003 when he was convicted and sentenced by the trial magistrate. In his view, he had been sufficiently punished. While in prison, he says he has reformed and had further trained to be a carpenter. He had even completed his Grade I tests. He stated that he was ready to be a useful member of the society and would not engage in criminal activities. He urged the court to reduce his sentence to the period already served. Mr Koech, Learned State Counsel did not have anything to say as regard the sentence of the appellant. He left the issue to the court.
I have perused the proceedings of the lower court. Although the appellant had faulted the trial magistrate for convicting him on what he stated was an equivocal plea of guilty, in my considered view, the appellant rightly chose to abandon his appeal against conviction. The plea as taken by the trial magistrate was unequivocal. The said plea of guilty was properly taken and therefore the appellant’s conviction on his own plea of guilty cannot be faulted. On the issue of sentence, the appellant appeared to this court to be remorseful. He has admitted his mistake and during his incarceration in prison, he had taken measures to train and gain knowledge of a useful trade.The appellant came across as someone who has seen the folly of crime and has reformed his behaviour. I have considered the submissions made by the appellant.
I have also considered the fact that the appellant has already served two years and three months of the four years sentence imposed. In the circumstances of this case, I agree with the appellant that the period already served is sufficient punishment for the appellant. He has learnt his lesson and is ready to integrate and become a useful member of the society. His sentence is therefore commuted to the period already served. The appellant is thus ordered set at liberty from prison unless otherwise lawfully held.
DATED at NAKURU this 13th day of July 2005.
L. KIMARU
JUDGE