[2008] KEHC 611 (KLR)
The court found that since the three counts stemmed from the same event, the sentences imposed should run concurrently in accordance with the principle established in Reuben vs R. The plea of guilty was properly taken, and the conviction was not in dispute. The only issue was the manner in which the sentences were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 611 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Clement Mokaya Ochogi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 154 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed_in_part
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Sentences, Plea of Guilty
- 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
Clement Mokaya Ochogi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences for the three counts should run concurrently or consecutively.
- 2 Whether the plea was properly taken and the conviction was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the three counts stemmed from the same event, the sentences imposed should run concurrently in accordance with the principle established in Reuben vs R. The plea of guilty was properly taken, and the conviction was not in dispute. The only issue was the manner in which the sentences were to be served. The court allowed the appeal to the extent that the sentences for the three counts should run concurrently, not consecutively.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed_in_part
Orders
- The sentences of one year imprisonment in each of the three counts shall run concurrently.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
Criminal Misc. 154 of 2008
CLEMENT MOKAYA OCHOGI ……………..……… ACCUSED
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..............................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. I have now seen the Grounds of Appeal in this matter and noted that the only ground argued by Mr Mutuku is sentence. I have gone through the record and I note that the Appellant admitted the offence and the plea was properly taken.
2. However, in sentencing the accused person, the learned magistrate sentenced him to one year in prison in each of the 3 counts. The law as set out in Reuben vs R is that where the offences stem from the same event, the proper sentence to give is a concurrent sentence.
3. I will therefore, allow the appeal limited only to the one year sentences in each of the 3 counts to run concurrently and not consecutively.
4. Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 25thday of November2008.
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE