[2012] KEHC 2593 (KLR)
The court found that the five-year sentence imposed on the appellant was harsh and excessive given the low value of the stolen maize (Kshs. 500), the fact that the complainant was the appellant's father, the property was recovered before the appellant could benefit, and the appellant had already served one year in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2593 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Ezekiel Gatitu Kuria; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 119 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Judges
- DO Ohungo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Stealing From Dwelling, Plea of Guilty, Recidivism, Mitigation of Sentence
- 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
Ezekiel Gatitu Kuria
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the five-year sentence imposed on the appellant for stealing from a dwelling house was harsh and excessive.
- 2 Whether the appellant's plea of guilty and the recovery of the stolen property warranted a reduction of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the five-year sentence imposed on the appellant was harsh and excessive given the low value of the stolen maize (Kshs. 500), the fact that the complainant was the appellant's father, the property was recovered before the appellant could benefit, and the appellant had already served one year in prison. The court also considered the appellant's remorse, his young age, and the willingness of his parents to receive him back. Taking all these factors into account, the court held that the period already served was sufficient punishment and substituted the original sentence with the time served, allowing the appeal and ordering the appellant's immediate release unless...
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- The sentence of five years imprisonment is set aside and substituted with the period already served.
- The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT NAKURU
Criminal Appeal 119 of 2011
EZEKIEL GATITU KURIA ………………..….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …………..……………….……. RESPONDENT
(An Appeal from original conviction and sentence in Molo C.M.CR.C. No.825 of 2011 by Hon. S.M.S. Soita, SRM dated 3rd May, 2011)
JUDGMENT
EZEKIEL GATITU KURIA(the appellant) was convicted on a charge of stealing from a dwelling house contrary to Section 279(b) Penal Code. The particulars of the charge stated that on 27th April 2011 at MAU SUMMIT in MOLO DISTRICT within the Rift Valley Province, he stole 24kgs of dry maize valued at Kshs.500/= the property of JOHN KURIA KARIUKI from his dwelling house.
Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge.
The facts narrated were that on the material date, the complainant (who is the appellant’s father) went on a safari, after securing his door. At about 2. 00 p.m. the complainant received a call from one of his daughters who informed him that appellant had stolen 24kgs of maize valued at Kshs.500/=. The complainant alerted the OCS and appellant was arrested while looking for customers. The maize was recovered.
Appellant confirmed that the facts were correct, so he was convicted on his own plea and sentenced to serve 5 (FIVE) years imprisonment. The prosecution had informed the trial court that appellant was not a first offender as the previous year he had been convicted on a charge of stealing and placed on Community Service Order. His appeal is basically on sentence which he terms as harsh. He informed this court that he is very remorseful and has apologised to his parents, who were the ones he offended. He expressed a willingness to go back home and pursue college education as his parents are now ready to receive him.
Mr.Omari on behalf of the State urged the court to consider that the appellant was not a first offender, although he conceded that the 5 year sentence was rather harsh.
I inquired and established from the appellant, who appears to be a very young man, that he is 26 years old and the eldest in a family of seven. I take into consideration the nature of the stolen item and its value, i.e., 500/=. I also consider that the complainant is his parent and the appellant did not benefit from his misdeed as the maize was recovered before he could dispose of it and enjoy the proceeds. I take into account the period he has served in prison, i.e., a year and my view is that indeed the 5 year sentence meted out was rather harsh. The one year he has served in prison, in my opinion is sufficient punishment. I therefore set aside the sentence and substitute it with the period already served. This means that appeal succeeds and the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Delivered and dated this 18th day of May, 2012 at Nakuru.
H.A. OMONDI
JUDGE