[2007] KEHC 3508 (KLR)
The court held that since the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of arson, Section 348(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code barred an appeal against conviction except as to the legality or extent of sentence. The record showed that the proceedings were conducted in English/Kikuyu, which the court accepted as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3508 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Cosmas Macharia Manegene; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 11 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Arson, Malicious Damage to Property, Plea of Guilty, Sentencing, Language of Court, Age of Accused
- 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
Cosmas Macharia Manegene
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's plea of guilty was valid and precluded appeal on conviction except as to sentence or legality of sentence.
- 2 Whether the language used in court breached the appellant's constitutional rights.
- 3 Whether the appellant's age affected the legality of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of arson, Section 348(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code barred an appeal against conviction except as to the legality or extent of sentence. The record showed that the proceedings were conducted in English/Kikuyu, which the court accepted as accurate, and thus there was no breach of the appellant's constitutional rights regarding language. The medical report established that the appellant was above 18 years of age at the time of the offence, so the sentence was lawful. Considering that Section 332 of the Penal Code prescribes life imprisonment for arson, the sentence of six years was not harsh or excessive. The court...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentence of six years imprisonment is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
Criminal Appeal 11 of 2006
COSMAS MACHARIA MANEGENE…………...………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………………………..RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant was charged with 2 counts. Count 1 was the offence of Arson contrary to Section 332 Penal Code. Count 2 was offence of malicious damage to property contrary to Section 339(1) of the Penal Code.
On 3/1/2006 the appellant was taken before the court at Kerugoya. It is recorded that the language used was English/Kikuyu. The Appellant pleaded guilty on count one but not guilty under count 2. The particulars of count 1 were read to the appellant. The summary of which was that he was annoyed by his mother and he burnt her house completely. The appellant admitted the particulars. The court was of view that the offence was very serious and also the Appellant was not remorseful and proceeded to sentence him to six years imprisonment.
On the issue of count 2, the court ordered a hearing on another day. It happened that on the day of hearing count 2, the state withdrew the charge under Section 87 (a) CPC. Referring to grounds of appeal Section 348(1) prohibits appeals where the conviction is on plea of guilty except as to the extent or legality of sentence.
Therefore grounds 1&2 have no merit. On ground 3 the record shows that the language used was English/Kikuyu. This court of record believes what is recorded. This ground is dismissed. Failure to use a language which an accused person understands is in breach of constitutional rights.
On ground 4 the medical report on assessment of age has indicated that in December 2005 the appellant was aged above 18 years of age. This ground is also dismissed. The issue of age touches on legality of sentence.
On the issue of ground 5 that the sentence was harsh and excessive Section 332 prescribes life imprisonment as sentence. The sentence of 6 years is neither harsh nor excessive in the circumstances. I find no reason to interfere in this case in sentence. The appeal is dismissed.
Dated this 22nd November, 2007.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE
22/11/2007
Khaminwa – Judge
Njue – Clerk
Appellant present
Mr. Kimathi for state.
Read in open court.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE