[2018] KEHC 4665 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 4665 (KLR)

The appellate court found that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing the appellant to two years imprisonment for obtaining money by false pretences. The court considered the appellant's status as a first offender and the nine months spent in remand, but also noted the aggravating factors:...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 4665 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Ebrahim Kiogora Meme; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nanyuki
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 106 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
DW Mbuteti
Legal Topics
Obtaining by False Pretences, Sentencing Principles, Fraudulent Land Transactions
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Obtaining by False Pretences Sentencing Principles Fraudulent Land Transactions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ebrahim Kiogora Meme

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of two years imprisonment for obtaining money by false pretences was excessive or warranted interference by the appellate court.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing the appellant to two years imprisonment for obtaining money by false pretences. The court considered the appellant's status as a first offender and the nine months spent in remand, but also noted the aggravating factors: the appellant had previously swindled another person over the same parcel of land and had not refunded the defrauded sum. Given these circumstances and the statutory maximum of three years, the sentence was not excessive or unjust. There was no valid reason for the appellate court to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is dismissed.