[2006] KEHC 1763 (KLR)
The court found no sufficient basis to alter the trial magistrate's order that the sentences run consecutively. The offences were committed separately, and the applicant's grievance regarding the sentencing should be raised in an appeal, not through a miscellaneous application. The application to have the sentences...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1763 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ephantus Njoroge Mwangi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 322 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- CJ Kendagor
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Concurrent Sentences, Consecutive Sentences
- 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
Ephantus Njoroge Mwangi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the applicant should run concurrently instead of consecutively as ordered by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no sufficient basis to alter the trial magistrate's order that the sentences run consecutively. The offences were committed separately, and the applicant's grievance regarding the sentencing should be raised in an appeal, not through a miscellaneous application. The application to have the sentences run concurrently was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to have the sentences run concurrently is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Misc Crim Appli 322 of 2006
EPHANTUS NJOROGE MWANGI..……….......................................………..APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……………………..…………...................................………..RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The Applicant herein seeks this court’s order to have the sentences meted against him ordered to run concurrently and not consecutively as ordered by the trial Court.
The Application is opposed by the State. Mrs. Kagiri for the State submitted that the consolidation of the sentences ought not to be ordered since the offences were committed separately.
I decline to alter the terms of sentence ordered by the learned trial magistrate. Having perused the judgment of the court, the issue raised by the Applicant should best be addressed in an appropriate appeal. The Application is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Nairobi this 19th day of July 2006.
…………………….
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE
Read, signed and delivered in the presence of;
Applicant
Mrs. Kagiri for the State/Respondent
Tabitha – Court clerk
……………………..
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE