[2011] KEHC 2067 (KLR)
The High Court found that while the sentence of seven years imprisonment was within the law, it was excessive for a first offender, especially since the stolen animals were recovered. The court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to three years imprisonment, holding that the circumstances justified a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2067 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Douglas Kibiwott Limo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 41 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Sentence Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced
- Judges
- J Karanja
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Appeal on Sentence, First Offender, Recovery of Stolen Property
- 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
Douglas Kibiwott Limo
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Sentence Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was harsh and excessive for a first offender whose stolen property was recovered.
- 2 Whether the appellate court should interfere with the sentence imposed by the lower court.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that while the sentence of seven years imprisonment was within the law, it was excessive for a first offender, especially since the stolen animals were recovered. The court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to three years imprisonment, holding that the circumstances justified a lesser sentence.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced
Orders
- The sentence of seven years imprisonment is reduced to three years imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2008
DOUGLAS KIBIWOTT LIMO ……..………..….…...……… APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …………..…………………..……………… RESPONDENT
RULING
The appeal may be incompetent but has been filed by the appellant in person. He is not conversant with the law being a layman to know whether or not he ought to have filed the appeal. He may be forgiven.
Since the appeal is on sentence, the Court may not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the lower Court in sentencing unless of course, the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive or that it was unlawful.
Herein the sentence of seven (7) years imprisonment was within the law but for a first offender it was on a higher side considering that the stolen animals were recovered.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence of seven (7) years imprisonment is now reduced to three (3) years imprisonment.
J. R. KARANJA
JUDGE
14/7/2011