[2012] KEHC 316 (KLR)
The court found that the conviction on the second count was unsafe because the plea was equivocal and the substance found was not analyzed to confirm it was cannabis sativa. The trial magistrate should have entered a plea of not guilty on that count. The conviction and sentence on count two were therefore quashed....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 316 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Elijah Kimaru; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 6 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; conviction and sentence on count two quashed; sentence on count one reduced to period served; appellant released unless otherwise lawfully held.
- Legal Topics
- Stock Theft, Possession of Narcotics, Plea Equivocality, Sentencing Principles
- 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
Elijah Kimaru
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction on the second count of possession of cannabis sativa was proper given the facts and plea.
- 2 Whether the sentence of three years imprisonment for stock theft was harsh considering the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the conviction on the second count was unsafe because the plea was equivocal and the substance found was not analyzed to confirm it was cannabis sativa. The trial magistrate should have entered a plea of not guilty on that count. The conviction and sentence on count two were therefore quashed. On the first count, the plea was properly taken and the conviction was upheld. However, considering the low value of the stolen sheep, the appellant's status as a first offender, his plea of guilty, and his mitigation, the sentence of three years was deemed harsh. The court substituted the sentence with the period already served and ordered the appellant's immediate release...
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; conviction and sentence on count two quashed; sentence on count one reduced to period served; appellant released unless otherwise lawfully held.
Orders
- Conviction and sentence on count two quashed and set aside.
- Sentence on count one substituted with period already served.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nakuru
Criminal Appeal 6 of 2012 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
800x600
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Times New Roman","serif";} </style> <![endif]
(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 905/2011 of the Senior Resident Magistrate, Maralal – A.K. ITHUKU, SRM)
ELIJAH KIMARU………………..………………..…..APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………………….……RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Elijah Kimaru appeals against the decision of the Senior Resident Magistrate, Maralal in Criminal Case No. 905/2011. He was charged with two offences; stealing stock contrary to Section 278 of the Penal Code and being in possession of cannabis sativa contrary to Section 2A as read with Section 3(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act No. 4 of 1994. He pleaded guilty, was convicted and on the first count he was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and the 2nd count he was entered to serve one year imprisonment. He is aggrieved by the sentence meted which he complains is too harsh; that he has received vocational training; learned good skills which he can put to good use to support his young sisters. He urged the court to consider a non custodial sentence.
Ms Idagwa Learned Counsel for the State submitted that she does not support he conviction on the second count because the facts did not disclose an offence. However, on the first charge, the counsel said that the sentence is lenient and the court should not interfere.
The appellant pleaded guilty to count 2 on 31/10/2011, when he first appeared before the Senior Resident Magistrate, Mr.Ithuku. The facts were read to him and he admitted that they were correct; that he was found in possession of 6 rolls of bhang. The said rolls were not taken to the Government Analyst for analysis to determine what they were. Further when the court invited the appellant to give his mitigation, he said “ I am sorry, I had been given a coat by a friend. I did not know the court had bhang in the pocket.” The mitigation, was clearly a denial of the offence as he sought to qualify his admission of the facts. The plea was equivocal and the trial magistrate should have entred a plea of not guilty. The appellant was wrongly convicted on count 2 and that conviction is hereby quashed, sentence set aside.
As regards, the 1st count, the plea was properly taken and the conviction is safe. The value of the sheep that was stolen was only Kshs.2,600/-. Since the appellant was a first offender, and had pleaded guilty, I think that the sentence of 3 years was harsh. I have taken into account the appellant’s mitigation that he has reformed, has siblings to look after. He was sentenced to prison on 14/11/2011. He has already served one year imprisonment. I will therefore allow his appeal on sentence, and substitute it with the period he has already served. He is set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
DATED and DELIVERED this 7th day of December, 2012.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
PRESENT:
The appellant – in person
Mr. Omwenga for the State
Kennedy – Court Clerk