[2016] KEHC 702 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had the charge read and explained to him in a language he understood, and that he confirmed the facts as correct. There was no evidence that the appellant was misled or did not understand the consequences of his plea. The trial magistrate was not obligated to inform the appellant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 702 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Edward Limiri M'Aranju; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 96 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed_in_part
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Plea of Guilty, Change of Plea, Sentencing, Stealing Offence
- 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 Limiri M'Aranju
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant understood the consequences of changing his plea.
- 2 Whether the appellant was misled or not properly informed regarding the change of plea.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had the charge read and explained to him in a language he understood, and that he confirmed the facts as correct. There was no evidence that the appellant was misled or did not understand the consequences of his plea. The trial magistrate was not obligated to inform the appellant of the specific sentence to be imposed. However, the court found the sentence of two years imprisonment to be harsh given the value of the stolen property (Kshs. 7,000). The court substituted the custodial sentence with a fine of Kshs. 20,000 in default to serve six months imprisonment, allowing the appeal only to the extent of sentence.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed_in_part
Orders
- The sentence of two years imprisonment is set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to a fine of Kshs. 20,000 in default to serve six months imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2015
EDWARD LIMIRI M'ARANJU..................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..............................................................RESPONDENT
(From the original conviction and sentence in criminal case No.2018 of 2015 of the
Chief Magistrate’s Court at Maua by Hon. Samuel Soita – Senior Principal Magistrate)
JUDGMENT
The appellant,EDWARD LIMIRI M'ARANJU, was convicted of an offence of stealing contrary to section 268(1) as read with section 275 of the Penal Code.
The particulars of the offence were that on 27th June 2015 at Kirindara village in Igembe South District of Meru County, jointly with others not before court stole miraa valued at Kshs. 7000/= the property of Peter Gitonga.
The appellant was sentenced to serve 2 (two) years imprisonment. He now appeals against both conviction and sentence.
The appellant was represented by Mr. J.O Ondieki, learned counsel. He raised three grounds of appeal as follows:
1. That the appellant did not understand the consequences of changing plea.
2. That the appellant was not explained the effect of changing plea.
3. That the appellant was misled.
The state opposed the appeal through Mr. Odhiambo, the learned counsel who contended that the appellant was estopped from raising issues on conviction for he had pleaded guilty to the offence.
When the appellant was taken to court on 29th June 2015, he pleaded not guilty to the charge. The matter was fixed for hearing on 23rd September 2015. However, when the case came up for mention on 30th July 2015, the court indicated that it was to be mentioned next on 3rd August 2015 for change of plea.
The record is silent as to who made the application.
On 3rd August 2015 the record indicates that the plea was read over and explained to the accused in Kimeru. Since there were two accused persons the record of appeal is not clear which of the two changed his plea. However the original record indicates that it was the first accused who changed his plea.
The appellant pleaded guilty and when the facts were read to him, he confirmed that they were correct.
The only issue I could have raised was the fact that the record was silent as to who made the application for the change of plea. However, since the charge was read afresh and explained to the appellant I make a finding that he must have been the one who had made the application.
The record does not have anything to show that he was misled by anybody. The learned trial magistrate had no obligation to inform him that he was going to send him to prison. This must have been the appellant's expectation. By virtue of the provisions of section 348 of the Criminal Procedure code he cannot contest his conviction. It states:
No appeal shall be allowed in the case of an accused person who has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on that plea by a subordinate court, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.
The value of the stolen miraa was given as Kshs. 7,000/= In the circumstances I am persuaded that the sentence was harsh. I therefore set aside the learned trial magistrate sentence and substitute it with a fine of Kshs. 20,000/= in default to serve six months imprisonment. To that extent his appeal succeed.
DATED at Meru 19th day of December 2016
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE