[2020] KEHC 7152 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence of two years imprisonment or payment of Kshs. 50,000 as compensation was lawful and, in fact, extremely lenient considering the brutality of the offence, the use of lethal weapons, and the severe, life-altering injuries inflicted on the victim. The convicts showed no remorse and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 7152 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Evans Otieno Ochieng; Applicant: Vincent Okoth Ouma; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 18 ‘B’ of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application for revision of sentence dismissed
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Grievous Harm, Sentencing Revision, Compensation Orders
- 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 Otieno Ochieng
Applicant
Vincent Okoth Ouma
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed for the offence of grievous harm was excessive or required revision.
- 2 Whether the circumstances of the offence and the conduct of the convicts warranted a reduction or alteration of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence of two years imprisonment or payment of Kshs. 50,000 as compensation was lawful and, in fact, extremely lenient considering the brutality of the offence, the use of lethal weapons, and the severe, life-altering injuries inflicted on the victim. The convicts showed no remorse and there was no provocation or justification for their actions. The court held that there was no merit in the application for revision as the punishment imposed was within the law and not excessive. The request for revision was therefore declined and dismissed.
Court Disposition
application for revision of sentence dismissed
Orders
- The request for revision of sentence is declined and dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT SIAYA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 18 ‘B’ OF 2020
(CORAM: R. E. ABURILI - J.)
EVANS OTIENO OCHIENG ...............................1ST APPLICANT
VINCENT OKOTH OUMA ................................2ND APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...............................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an Application for revision of sentence vide Principal Magistrate’s Court, Siaya Criminal Case No. 135 of 2019 dated 24. 7.2019 before Hon. M. Mwangi, Resident Magistrate)
RULING
1. The convicts Evans Otieno Ochieng and Vincent Okoth Ouma were convicted for the offence of grievous harm contrary toSection 234 of the Penal Code and after mitigations and consideration of the Social Inquiry Reports, they were each ordered to pay compensation in the sum of Kshs. 50,000/- to be paid to the complainant and in default to serve 2 years imprisonment. They have not appealed.
2. They seek for revision of sentence. I have considered the request, the circumstances under which the offence was committed and the debilitating injuries sustained by the victim who is now disabled and unable to fend for his family. The compensation fine would have assisted him seek for treatment.
3. The convicts used lethal weapons to assault the victim. He would have succumbed as the convicts aimed at his head with a panga, and a sword. There was no provocation or justification for the convicts to use such brutal violent force on an individual who was not armed.
4. The convicts denied the offence and there is nothing on record to show their remorse.
5. I find the request for sentence revision unmerited as the punishment for grievous harm is up to life imprisonment. 2 years imprisonment is lawful but extremely lenient for people who tortured their fellow human being and left him for dead.
6. The convicts deserve to be kept away from the victims and the rest of the community as they are deadly dangerous beings.
7. The request is declined and dismissed.
8. Orders accordingly
Dated, signed and delivered at Siaya, this 20th Day of March 2020.
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE