[2003] KEHC 317 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate had properly considered all relevant factors in sentencing, including the appellants' mitigation and the period spent in custody. The sentence of three and a half years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offence. There was no basis...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] KEHC 317 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Francis Karanja Mwangi; Appellant: Philip Mbondo Kioko; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 926 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- RM Mutitu
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Firearms Offences, Appeal Against 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
Francis Karanja Mwangi
Appellant
Philip Mbondo Kioko
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of three and a half years imprisonment for possession of a firearm without a certificate was manifestly excessive.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate properly considered the appellants' mitigation and period spent in custody before sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial magistrate had properly considered all relevant factors in sentencing, including the appellants' mitigation and the period spent in custody. The sentence of three and a half years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offence. There was no basis for the appellate court to interfere with the sentence, and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
- The sentence of three and a half years imprisonment to run concurrently on all counts is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.926 OF 2001
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.2425 of 1999 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nairobi)
FRANCIS KARANJA MWANGI )……………………….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………………………RESPONDENT
CONSOLIDATED WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.927 OF 2001
(From Original Conviction and Sentence In Criminal Case 2425 of 1999 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nairobi)
PHILIP MBONDO KIOKO ……………………………….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……………………………………………. RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
The two appellants namely Francis Karanja Mwangi and Philip Kioko Mbondo were convicted and sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment on three counts of being in possession of a firearm without a firearms certificate contrary to section 4 (2) of Cap.114 of the Laws of Kenya. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Both appellants brought this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence at the time of arguing their appeal both appellants abandoned their appeal against conviction. They both challenged the sentence imposed against them arguing that it was too harsh. They both argued that the sentence be reduced.
Mr. Kivihya for the state opposed their plea and argued that the sentence is not manifestly excessive.
I have perused the trial magistrate’s record as it relates to sentencing. I have noted that the trial magistrate took into account the fact that the two appellants had been in custody for a long time before sentencing them. She also took their plea in mitigation. Taking everything into account it is my considered view that the sentence imposed upon the appellants was appropriately arrived at and well considered. I will not therefore interfere with the sentence imposed upon the appellants. I dismiss the appellants appeal against the sentence accordingly.
R.M. MUTITU
JUDGE
2/4/2003
Delivered in open court in the presence of the two appellants and in the presence of Mr. Kivihya for the state.
…………………………
R.M. MUTITU
JUDGE
2/4/2003