[2010] KEHC 2189 (KLR)
The court found that while the trial magistrate considered the appellant's remorse, he did not specifically take into account the mitigating effect of the appellant's plea of guilty. The High Court held that had this factor been considered, a lesser sentence might have been imposed. Consequently, the sentence was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2189 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Deogracious Keddi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 10 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Sentence reduced on appeal.
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Plea of Guilty, Stock Theft, Mitigation of 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
Deogracious Keddi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate failed to adequately consider the appellant's plea of guilty.
- 2 Whether the sentence should be reduced in light of the appellant's remorse and plea.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the trial magistrate considered the appellant's remorse, he did not specifically take into account the mitigating effect of the appellant's plea of guilty. The High Court held that had this factor been considered, a lesser sentence might have been imposed. Consequently, the sentence was reduced from 4 years to 2.5 years to reflect the appellant's plea and the interests of justice.
Court Disposition
Sentence reduced on appeal.
Orders
- The sentence of 4 years imprisonment is reduced to 2.5 years imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
Criminal Appeal 10 of 2010
DEOGRATIOUS KEDDI ------------------------------------APPEALLANT
-VERSUS-
REPUBLIC -----------------------------------------------------RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The appellant was convicted of stealing stock Contraryto Section 278 of the Penal code.He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.He has served 1 year and 8 months.He seeks reduction of the sentence on the ground that he pleaded guilty and saved the State of time and funds.
The trial Magistrate appears to have taken into account the fact that the appellant was remorseful.He however appears not to have considered the fact of the appellant having pleaded guilty.
I have considered the grounds of appeal and taken into account the fact that Republic opposes the appeal.Had the trial magistrate taken into account the plea of guilty specifically, he might have given a lesser sentence.
In these circumstances I will reduce the sentence from 4 years to 2 ½ years.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Busia on 3rd day of March 2010.
D.A. ONYANCHA
J U D G E
3/03/10