[2009] KEHC 2837 (KLR)
The High Court found that the sentence of four years imprisonment for malicious damage to property was within the statutory maximum of five years and was justified in light of the appellant's previous convictions, lack of remorse, and failure to benefit from probation and rehabilitation. The trial magistrate...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 2837 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Edward Kihu Waithanji; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 53 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Malicious Damage to Property, Sentencing Principles, Appeal on Sentence, Probation Report, Recidivism
- 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
Edward Kihu Waithanji
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of four years imprisonment for malicious damage to property was harsh and manifestly excessive.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate considered extraneous issues or failed to consider relevant factors such as psychiatric predisposition and the probation report.
- 3 Whether the trial court exercised its sentencing discretion judicially and in accordance with legal principles.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the sentence of four years imprisonment for malicious damage to property was within the statutory maximum of five years and was justified in light of the appellant's previous convictions, lack of remorse, and failure to benefit from probation and rehabilitation. The trial magistrate considered all relevant factors, including the probation report and the appellant's background, and did not rely on extraneous or irrelevant matters. There was no evidence of a genuine psychiatric condition affecting the appellant's culpability. The sentence was legal and appropriate, and the appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion....
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal on sentence is dismissed.
- The sentence of four years imprisonment is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
CRIMINAL APPEAL 53 OF 2008
EDWARD KIHU WAITHANJI…............................ APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…......................................................... RESPONDENT
(Appeal from original Conviction and Sentence in the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court
at Othaya in Criminal Case No. 1368 of 2007 by M.W. MUTUKU – SRM)
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is against sentence only. The appellant, Edward Kihu Waithanji was charged in the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court, Othaya with one count of Malicious Damage to property contrary to Section 339(1) of the Penal Code.
Upon arraignment in court on 24th December, 2007 and the charge having been read to him, the appellant pleaded guilty to the same and was accordingly convicted on his own plea of guilty. Upon conviction he was sentenced to four (4) years imprisonment. The appellant was aggrieved by the conviction and sentence and hence lodged the instant appeal limited to sentence only.
In his petition of appeal dated 4th March, 2008, the appellant claims that the sentence imposed was harsh and manifestly excessive, extraneous issues were considered by the learned Magistrate in arriving at the sentence, that the learned Magistrate failed to consider his psychiatric predisposition, that the complainant and appellant were sister and brother having a dispute over family property and finally that the learned trial Magistrate failed to order the Probation Officer to get proper information to assist him compile a proper report.
When the appeal came up for hearing before me on 4th May, 2009, the appellant in support of his appeal on sentence submitted that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. The complainant was a sister. They had fought over family land but she had since forgiven him. Finally he submitted that he had reformed.
Mr. Orinda, learned Senior Principal State Counsel was of the view that the appellant himself had invited the court to jail him for at least 3 years. Though the Magistrate ended up jailing him for 4 years, the appellant should get what he had asked for.
Sentencing is generally a matter for the discretion of the trial court. The discretion must however, be exercised judicially and not capriciously. The trial court must be guided by evidence and sound legal principles. It must take into account all relevant factors and eschew all extraneous or irrelevant factors. Certainly the appellate court would be entitled to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court if it is demonstrated that the sentence imposed is illegal or is so harsh and excessive as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, and or that the court acted upon wrong principle or if the court exercised its discretion capriciously. See generally, OGALO S/O OWUORA VS REPUBLIC (1954) 19 EACA 270, JAMES VS REPUBLIC (1950) 10 EACA 147, NILSON VS REPUBLIC (1970) EA 599 and WANJEMA VS REPUBLIC (1971) EA 493.
The trial court’s notes on sentence in this matter are extensive and went along way in justifying the sentence that was eventually imposed. The maximum sentence allowed under the statute for that kind of offence committed herein is five (5) years. In my view the sentence imposed was justified particularly if one goes through the probation report filed. The appellant had a record of previous conviction meaning that he was not a first offender. Indeed he had been placed on probation in criminal case number 249/07 for a duration of 18 months but according to the probation officer, he re-offended. The appellant was arrogant unrepentant and unremorseful. It would appear that the appellant is either on drugs and or he is an alcoholic. He has been to Asumbi Rehabilitation Centre without much success. Yet he is a holder of Bachelor of commerce degree from Daystar University, who should as correctly pointed out by the learned Magistrate, understand the consequences of all his actions. Much as the Probation Officer had tried to assist him through guidance and counselling, he remained uninterested and uncooperative.
There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant suffers from a mental condition. If there is however, it is self inflicted due to alcohol or drugs. There is no guarantee that if the sentence is reduced, he is likely to change his wayward ways and be good person capable of living in peace and harmony with his sister, the complainant. The sentence imposed was legal. In arriving at the sentence imposed, the learned Magistrate was alive to the principles of sentencing. She took in to account relevant factors and eschewed extraneous or irrelevant considerations. She had initially toyed with the idea of placing the appellant on probation. However the probation report filed persuaded her from taking that road. The learned Magistrate was bound to take into account the recommendation of the probation officer.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the sentence imposed was well deserved. I have no reason to interfere with it. The appeal on sentence accordingly fails.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 3rd day of June, 2009.
M.S.A MAKHANDIA
JUDGE