[2008] KEHC 2033 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had unequivocally pleaded guilty to the charge of stock theft, and had confirmed the correctness of the facts as read out in court. The appellant's subsequent attempt to introduce a different narrative was rejected as an attempt to mislead the court. The conviction was therefore...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 2033 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Evans Luvusa Malande; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 16 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
- Legal Topics
- Stock Theft, Plea of Guilty, 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
Evans Luvusa Malande
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and valid.
- 2 Whether the conviction for stock theft was proper based on the plea.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and excessive.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had unequivocally pleaded guilty to the charge of stock theft, and had confirmed the correctness of the facts as read out in court. The appellant's subsequent attempt to introduce a different narrative was rejected as an attempt to mislead the court. The conviction was therefore sound in law. Regarding sentence, the court held that the four-year imprisonment imposed was lawful and not excessive, even considering the appellant was a first offender, as it was well below the statutory maximum. The appeal was found to have no merit and was dismissed, with both conviction and sentence upheld.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
Criminal Appeal 16 of 2007
EVANS LUVUSA MALANDE ……………………….. APPELLANT
V E R S U S
REPUBLIC …………………………………………….. RESPONDENT
J U D G E M E N T
EVANS LUVUSA MALANDE, the appellant told the court that he needs help of the court. He said that he is an only child and that it was only the court that could help him.
As far as he was concerned, the investigations carried out by the police had favoured only one side. It was his contention that the said investigations were not balanced.
His submission was that the calf which he had taken from the complainant was actually his. His explanation was that the complainant was his neighbour, and that the said complainant had given to him a cow, to look after. The understanding between him and the complainant was that the first two calves of that cow would go to the complainant, whilst the 3rd calf would belong to the appellant.
However, when he took the 3rd calf, he was charged.
It is for that reason that the appellant asked this court to help him.
However, the learned state counsel pointed out that the appellant had been convicted on his own plea of guilty. As the plea was unequivocal, the state submitted that the conviction was proper.
And as regards the sentence, the state submitted that the same was not excessive. Therefore, I was asked to dismiss the appeal.
The charge facing the appellant, before the lower court was for stock theft contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code.
The facts set out in the charge sheet were that the appellant stole one brown heifer valued at KShs.10,000/= which was the property of Joyce Adisa.
The facts that were read out in court, after the appellant had pleaded guilty, were to the effect that the appellant had tied her brown heifer in the kitchen within the main house. At 4. 00 a.m., the complainant heard her hens making noise and she woke up, only to find that a hole had been dug on the wall, and the heifer stolen.
The appellant and his co-accused led to the person to whom they had sold the heifer, and the heifer was recovered.
When those facts were read out to the appellant, he said;
“The facts are correct.”
It therefore defies all logic for the appellant to now put forward a completely different story before this court. To my mind, the story was simply intended to hoodwink the court into sympathizing with the appellant.
The story cannot be true at all, and the attempt to mislead the court is rejected with the contempt it deserves.
There is no doubt that the appellant’s plea was unequivocal. Therefore, the conviction is sound, in law.
As regards sentence, the maximum penalty prescribed under section 278 of the Penal Code is 14 years imprisonment.
The appellant was jailed for 4 years. Clearly, that sentence is lawful. It is not excessive even considering that the appellant was a first offender.
In the result, I find no merit in the appeal. It is therefore dismissed. Both the conviction and the sentence are upheld.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kakamega, this 1st day of July, 2008
FRED A. OCHIENG
J U D G E