[1984] KEHC 47 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and that he did not raise the issue of innocent purchase at the trial or in mitigation, making his subsequent explanation an afterthought. Consequently, no appeal lies against the conviction. However, the sentence imposed by the lower court was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1984] KEHC 47 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: David Omuse Odera; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 372 of 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal on conviction dismissed; sentence varied to include hard labour.
- Judges
- ARW Hancox
- Legal Topics
- Stock Theft, Plea of Guilty, Sentencing, Corporal Punishment
- 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 Omuse Odera
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and precluded an appeal against conviction.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and in accordance with the statutory requirements for stock theft under Section 278 of the Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and that he did not raise the issue of innocent purchase at the trial or in mitigation, making his subsequent explanation an afterthought. Consequently, no appeal lies against the conviction. However, the sentence imposed by the lower court was unlawful as it did not include hard labour as required by Section 278 of the Penal Code. The court therefore dismissed the appeal on conviction but altered the sentence to seven years’ imprisonment with hard labour, maintaining the order for corporal punishment.
Court Disposition
Appeal on conviction dismissed; sentence varied to include hard labour.
Orders
- Appeal on conviction is dismissed.
- Sentence is altered to seven years’ imprisonment with hard labour.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL APPEAL 372 OF 1983
DAVID OMUSE ODERA ………………………………….APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC ………………………………………………… RESPONDENT
(Appeal from conviction of the High Court of Kenya at Kakamega(Gicheru J) dated 29th November 1983 in Criminal Appeal No 372 of 1983)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
When David Omuse Odera, the appellant herein, appeared before an acting Resident Magistrate at Busia, on 27th October 1983 and had the charge of stealing stock contrary to Section 278 of the Penal Code, read and explained, he peaded guilty by admitting that he stole 2 bills of bulls of Erneyo Ojuma. He confirmed his plea by accepting as true, the facts narrated by the prosecution. He, was, therefore, properly convicted of the offence and sentenced to the mandatory statutory minimum sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment and ordered to receive 5 strokes of corporal punishment. On 29th November 1983 Mr Justice Gicheru summarily dismissed Omuse’s appeal to the High Court. He has now further appealed to this court, on the grounds that, he, in ignorance and presumably therefore, innocently, purchased the two head of livestock at a public auction and was given a receipt which got lost; he is a polygamist with a very large family of ten members who depend on him as the sole bread winner, he is a first offender and has decided to reform and the sentence is harsh and excessive. He asks this court to quash his conviction and either acquit either him or place him on probation.
The grounds of this appeal in the High Court were that, he bought the cattle from his neighbour without knowing that they were stolen, and that the sentence imposed was too excessive, more so, as the long imprisonment will adversely affect his family to the extent that, his children will not get education.
We note that, in his plea before the subordinate court and even in mitigation, the appellant did not raise the point of buying the two bulls from the unnamed neighbour, as he alleges in his grounds of appeal to the High Court. This is an afterthought and although his appeal should correctly, have been admitted to hearing in view of the grounds, no court would have accepted his belated explanation in the light of his unequivocal plea of guilty, to the charge of stock theft. No purpose would, therefore, be served by sending back this appeal to the High Court for admission for hearing. The appellant’s plea of guilty was unequivocal and as such, no appeal lies against the conviction: see Section 348(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
As to the sentence, the offence of stock theft is punishable with imprisonment with hard labour for a term of not less than seven and not more than fourteen years, together with corporal punishment. In so far as the sentence passed on the appellant did not include an order to hard labour as required by Section 278 of the Penal Code, it is unlawful. For the reasons stated, the appeal on conviction is dismissed, but we alter the sentence only to the extent that the appellant is sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with hard labour. The order for corporal punishment remains the same. Those shall be the orders of this court.
Dated and delivered at Kisumu, this 19 day of June 1984.
A R W HANCOX
…………………………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
Z R CHESONI
…………………………..
AG JUDGE OF APPEAL
J O NYARANGI
………………………….
AG JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
…………………………….
DEPUTY REGISTRAR