[2012] KECA 241 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had properly considered all relevant mitigating factors, including the appellants' youth, family responsibilities, and evidence of reform, before imposing the sentence of eight years' imprisonment for manslaughter. The appellate court found no evidence that the sentence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KECA 241 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Francis Muange Mose; Appellant: John Muli Mutavi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 31 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Sentencing Principles, Mitigating Factors, 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 Muange Mose
Appellant
John Muli Mutavi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of eight years' imprisonment for manslaughter was harsh or excessive.
- 2 Whether the trial court considered all relevant mitigating factors before sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had properly considered all relevant mitigating factors, including the appellants' youth, family responsibilities, and evidence of reform, before imposing the sentence of eight years' imprisonment for manslaughter. The appellate court found no evidence that the sentence was harsh or excessive in the circumstances, nor that the trial court had erred in principle. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the sentence affirmed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
- The sentence of eight years' imprisonment for each appellant is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CORAM: O’KUBASU, ONYANGO OTIENO & KOOME, JJ.A.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2008
BETWEEN
FRANCIS MUANGE MOSE
JOHN MULI MUTAVI …………….....…………………………… APPELLANTS
AND
REPUBLIC ………………………...……….…………………… RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Lenaola, J) dated 6th February, 2008
in
HCCR.C NO. 28 OF 2008)
****************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Both FRANCIS MUANGE MOSEandJOHN MULI MUTAVI were charged before the High Court, Machakos with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. They however, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter contrary to Section 202 as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code. Upon being convicted with the offence of manslaughter, they were each sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. They have now appealed against the severity of the sentence.
The summary of the facts are that on 22nd July, 2006, at about 10 pm, the two appellants who were friends, were walking from the local market. Along the way, they met the deceased whom they alleged had stolen from them some unspecified items. The two appellants started beating the deceased while demanding that he returns to them their items. One Musyoka Ngui and Mulei Kanungulu who were also walking along the same path, found the appellants beating the deceased. They intervened and stopped the appellants.
By that time, the deceased had sustained injuries, so Musyoka and Mule took him first to Sultan Hamud clinic. The next day, they transferred him to Machakos General Hospital. The deceased’s condition deteriorated and he was transferred to Kenyatta National Hospital, where he died four days later on 26th July, 2006. A post mortem examination was carried out on 7th August, 2006, and the cause of death was found to be as a result of a head injury due to blunt force. The appellants were arrested on 9th November, 2006, and charged with the offence of murder which was reduced to manslaughter.
The appellants appealed against their respective sentences and urged the court to consider that they are young men who have families for which they are the breadwinners. They also told us they have reformed during the time they have been incarcerated and had taken up some vocational training to help them in future. The order made by the learned trail judge took into account those mitigating factors before passing a sentence of eight years. Mrs Murungi, the learned Deputy Prosecution Counsel, submitted that the sentence imposed on the appellants was not excessive nor was it harsh.
We agree with the State Counsel that an appellate court is only entitled to interfere with the sentence if the trial court failed to take into account a relevant factor or took into account an irrelevant factor and thus passed a harsh and excessive sentence.
In this case, the sentence of eight years cannot be said to be harsh or excessive, the appellants are merely seeking for leniency.
We find the sentence was neither harsh nor excessive in the circumstances of the case. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 3rd day of February, 2012.
E. O. O’KUBASU
--------------------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
J. W. ONYANGO OTIENO
--------------------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
M. K. KOOME
--------------------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR