[2013] KEHC 3350 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence of 21 years imprisonment imposed on the appellant was illegal because it exceeded the statutory maximum of 14 years prescribed under section 162(a) of the Penal Code. The appellant had already served 9 years in prison, which the court considered sufficient punishment for the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3350 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: David Mithika; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 89 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal against sentence allowed; sentence reduced to period already served; appellant to be released unless otherwise lawfully held.
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Illegality, Unnatural Offences, Appeal Against Sentence
- 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
David Mithika
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 21 years imprisonment imposed on the appellant for the offence under section 162(a) of the Penal Code was lawful.
- 2 Whether the period already served by the appellant constituted sufficient punishment for the offence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence of 21 years imprisonment imposed on the appellant was illegal because it exceeded the statutory maximum of 14 years prescribed under section 162(a) of the Penal Code. The appellant had already served 9 years in prison, which the court considered sufficient punishment for the offence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal against sentence, set aside the illegal sentence, and ordered the appellant's immediate release unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
Appeal against sentence allowed; sentence reduced to period already served; appellant to be released unless otherwise lawfully held.
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is allowed.
- The sentence of 21 years imprisonment is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Meru
Criminal Appeal 89 of 2004
[if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]
DAVID MITHIKA.............................................APPELLANT
V E R S U S
REPUBLIC..................................................RESPONDENT
LESIIT J.
JUDGEMENT
The Appellant was convicted by the Chief Magistrates Court Meru with one Count of Unnatural Offence contrary to section 162(a) of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to 21 years imprisonment on 20th May, 2004. Being aggrieved he filed this appeal.
He has five grounds of appeal in his petition as follows:
1. I pleaded guilty to the charge without knowing the consequences.
2. That I had no legal representation because I could not afford.
3. It was my first time to appear in court of law and I did not know the procedure.
4. That my lordship I am not aware whether I committed the offence or not because by that time I was mentally sick.
5. I pray that the sentence of 21 years imprisonment be considered excessive and harmful considering the fact that I am a young man of 24 years of age.
The Applicant argued only his appeal against sentence when he came for the hearing of his appeal. He submitted that his sentence was harsh and excessive and urged the court to reduce it.
The State was absent on the day the appeal was heard despite having been served with dates.
I have considered this appeal.The Appellant was convicted under Section 162(a) of the Penal Code. A person convicted under that section is liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 14 years.
The Appellant was sentenced to 21 years imprisonment. That was an illegal sentence.
The Appellant has served 9 years imprisonment. It is my view that the Appellant has served sufficient punishment for the offence.
In the result, I do allow his appeal against sentence, set aside the imprisonment of 21 years and reduce it to the period already served. He should be set free forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2013.
LESIIT, J
JUDGE.