[2016] KEHC 895 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court had already exercised leniency by sentencing the appellant to six years' imprisonment for the offence of robbery, which carries a statutory maximum of fourteen years. The appellant's plea of guilty and mitigation were considered at the trial stage, and the sentence imposed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 895 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Francis Kamoni Wambua; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 158 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Robbery, Sentencing Review, Guilty Plea, Mitigation, Leniency, Appeal Out of Time
- 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
Francis Kamoni Wambua
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessively harsh and warranted further leniency.
- 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court had already exercised leniency by sentencing the appellant to six years' imprisonment for the offence of robbery, which carries a statutory maximum of fourteen years. The appellant's plea of guilty and mitigation were considered at the trial stage, and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or unjust. The court held that there was no justification for further leniency or interference with the sentence, and the appeal lacked merit.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal for further leniency is dismissed.
- The appellant shall serve the entire period and sentence pronounced by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL APPEAL 158 OF 2015
FRANCIS KAMONI WAMBUA.……...........................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC .............................................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal against the original conviction and Sentence of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Kilungu by Hon. P. Wambugu (SRM)) in Criminal Case No. 138 of 2015 dated 20th March, 2015)
**************************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1. The Appellant was charged with offence of robbery which he committed on 18th March, 2015 at Kee market, Kee location in Makueni Sub-County, where he robbed Eric Muthoka Mutua of one wallet, one national identity card and cash of Kshs. 200= all valued at Kshs. 1,000=. On 20th March, 2015 the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to six (6) years in jail. Not being satisfied with the sentencing the appellant on 14th September, 2015 made two simultaneous applications – one seeking leave to appeal out of time, and the other seeking for leniency on sentencing. The former application was not opposed by the State, and was allowed by the court, paving way for the hearing of the second application for leniency and review of the prison sentencing. The appellant’s case is that he is now remorseful and that he pleaded guilty to the offence, and that he will never again commit an offence.
2. The prosecution opposed the application stating that the offence with which the accused was charged attracted a sentence of fourteen (14) years, and that the trial magistrate only sentenced the accused to six (6) years. The sentence was already too lenient and this court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the same.
3. I have considered the application and opposition to the same. In my view, the trial court’s sentencing was already lenient. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge which attracts fourteen (14) years in prison. In mitigation the appellant pleaded for leniency. The trial court considered that plea, and answered it positively by granting the appellant six (6) years instead of fourteen (14) years.
4. The appeal for further leniency is not justified. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. The appellant to serve the entire period and sentence pronounced by trial court.
THAT is the judgment of the court.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MACHAKOS THIS 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016.
E. OGOLA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Machogu for State
Accused present in person
Court Assistant – Mr. Munyao