[2021] KEHC 3004 (KLR)
The court found that the custodial sentence of two years imposed on the applicant, a first offender who pleaded guilty and was remorseful, was harsh and disproportionate to the circumstances. The value of the stolen property was Kshs 250,000, and had a fine been imposed, the default custodial period would not have...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 3004 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Collins Kimutai Kipicho; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E269 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Sentence Review and Appeal
- Outcome
- sentence reduced to period served; applicant released forthwith
- Judges
- GL Nzioka
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Stealing by Servant, Mitigation, First Offender, Option of Fine
- 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
Collins Kimutai Kipicho
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Sentence Review and Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of three years imprisonment without an option of fine for stealing by servant was excessive and should be reviewed.
- 2 Whether the applicant, as a first offender who pleaded guilty and showed remorse, should be granted an option of fine or a reduced sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the custodial sentence of two years imposed on the applicant, a first offender who pleaded guilty and was remorseful, was harsh and disproportionate to the circumstances. The value of the stolen property was Kshs 250,000, and had a fine been imposed, the default custodial period would not have exceeded twelve months. The court emphasized the need for rehabilitation over punishment for first offenders and noted the positive pre-sentence report. Consequently, the court held that the applicant had been adequately punished by the period already served and ordered his immediate release, reducing the sentence to time served. The employer retained the right to pursue civil...
Court Disposition
sentence reduced to period served; applicant released forthwith
Orders
- The sentence is reduced to the period already served.
- The applicant shall be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS CRIMINAL DIVISION
MISC CR APPL E269 OF 2020
COLLINS KIMUTAI KIPICHO.........................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.......................................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant moved the court vide a notice of motion application dated; 26th October 12020. The same is premised on the provisions of section 165(6), 50(1) and (2) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
2. It is supported by an affidavit of the even date sworn by Collins Kimutai Kipicho. In a nutshell, the applicant is seeking that, the Honourable court do review the sentence of three years imprisonment, imposed against him in Criminal Case Number E1109 of 2020, and grant him an option of paying a fine, that the court would deem appropriate.
3. That, he was charged with the offence of stealing by servant contrary to section 268(1) as read with section 281 of the Penal Code and is currently serving the three (3) years imprisonment at Industrial Area Prison. Further, he suffers from acute asthma and has difficulty in breathing and is apprehensive that, with COVID-19, his life may be endangered. Moreover, all other inmates have shunned him due to his constant coughing and asthma attacks.
4. He prays that, the court do consider on humanitarian grounds, releasing him on an option of fine. That his family members are willing to contribute up to Kshs 200,000 to pay fine if the court exercises mercy and grants the fine. Finally, he states that, he pleaded guilty to save court’s time, based on his conscience, as he knew that he had done the wrong thing. In conclusion, he states that, he is fully reformed, first offender, and regrets stealing a laptop from his employer. That, he did so to get food for his children. He is a father of three children and of tender years. He was the sole bread winner.
5. Upon considering the application, the High Court on 2nd November 2020 ordered the application be served for directions and a presentence report filed. However, subsequently, on 17th December 2020, the Hon. Lady Justice directed the applicant to file an appeal instead of pursuing the application. A petition of appeal dated 21st December 2020, was then filed based on the ground that, the learned trial Magistrate erred in fact and law by sentencing the appellant to imprisonment in a term of three years without an option of fine.
6. I have considered the application and I find that, the accused was charged with the offence of stealing by servant contrary to section 268(1) of the Penal Code as read with section 281 of the Penal Code. he stated that the two laptops; Make- Dell Latitute, all valued at Kshs250,000, the property of his employer which came into his possession by virtue of his employment. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted accordingly. He was treated as a first offender. He then offered his mitigation to the effect that, he was remorseful and stole the laptops because he was in financial hardship.
7. After considering the records and mitigation, the court expressed its sentiments which are as per the record and sentenced him to serve two (2) years imprisonment. From the aforesaid, it is clear the appeal herein is purely on sentence. The Respondent does not oppose the same. The pre-sentence review report ordered for by the Hon. Justice J. Lessit (as she then was), is positive, though I note that, the victim was not traced for interview. Be that as it were, taking into account the value of the subject matter being Kshs250,000, and the fact that, had the appellant been fined an equivalent of that sum of money, the custodial period for default in payment thereof would not be more that twelve (12) months, and more so, the appellant is a first offender, pleaded guilty and is remorseful, the custodial sentence of two (2) years is rather harsh. The appellant having been a first offender, required to be given an opportunity for rehabilitation. I therefore find that, the appellant has been adequately punished by the sentence already served. I direct that sentence be reduced to the period already served and be released forthwith. In any case, the employer did not lose the right to pursue him in a civil action for compensation of the stolen property.
It is so ordered.
DATED, DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AND SIGNED THIS 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021.
GRACE L. NZIOKA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Ms Chege for the State
Kanyoko for the Appellant
Ombuna – Court Assistant