[2013] KEHC 5268 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant's plea was unequivocal, as the charge and facts were read to him in Kiswahili, a language he understood, and he admitted both. The record showed he was allowed to mitigate. The claim that it was his first time in court was false, as he had previous charges. However, the court found...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5268 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Francis Odhiambo Wakhu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 70 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed in part; sentence reduced
- Legal Topics
- Plea Taking, Arson, Sentencing, Language of Court
- 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 Odhiambo Wakhu
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plea of guilty entered by the appellant was unequivocal.
- 2 Whether the appellant was properly informed of the charge and facts in a language he understood.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant's plea was unequivocal, as the charge and facts were read to him in Kiswahili, a language he understood, and he admitted both. The record showed he was allowed to mitigate. The claim that it was his first time in court was false, as he had previous charges. However, the court found the ten-year sentence excessive given the circumstances and the appellant's record. The court set aside the ten-year sentence and substituted it with a four-year imprisonment from the date of conviction.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed in part; sentence reduced
Orders
- The appeal is disallowed.
- The sentence of ten years imprisonment is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Kakamega
Criminal Appeal 70 of 2011 [if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
SW X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
FRANCIS ODHIAMBO WAKHU .......................................................... APPLICANT
V E R S U S
REPUBLIC ........................................................................................... RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant was charged with the offence of arson contrary to Section 332 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that the appellant, on the 1st of July 2010 at Indangalasia location, Mumias District within Western Province, willfully and unlawfully set fire to a dwelling house valued at KShs.10,900/=. The property of one ROSIA ANYANYA. The appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve Ten (10) years imprisonment.
The appellant contends that the plea was unequivocal, he was not given an opportunity to rethink about his position to take the plea, that the police advised him to plead guilty and that he was not conversant with the language of the court. The appellant submitted that he would like the case to be retried as it was his first time to be in court. He pleaded guilty because the police advised him that if he pleaded guilty he was going to be forgiven.
Mr. Orinda, state counsel, opposed the appeal. Counsel submitted that the taking of the plea was adjourned and the appellant still maintained that he committed the offence.
The record of the trial court shows that the appellant was arraigned before the court on 14th July 2010. He pleaded guilty but the prosecutor sought an adjournment so that he could amend the charge sheet. The matter was adjourned to the following day 15/7/2010 but it did not proceed as the prosecutor did not have the photographs of the burnt house. The plea was re-taken on 27/7/2010 and the charge was read over to the appellant in Kiswahili and the appellant pleaded guilty. The facts were explained to the accused and he admitted the facts. He was allowed to mitigate which he did.
From the record of the trial court, I am satisfied that the plea was unequivocal. The appellant pleaded guilty to both the charge and the facts and cannot retract his plea. The contention that it was the appellant’s first time in court is false as the report by the community service officer shows that he had been charged in court for other offences before.
The appellant was sentenced to serve 10 years imprisonment. There was an attempt to commit the appellant to community service but the appellant’s past record did not favour such a sentence. Taking into account the circumstances of the case as stated in the facts read to the trial court, I do find that the sentence of 10 years is quite excessive.
In the end the appeal lacks merit and the same is disallowed. The sentence of 10 years imprisonment is set aside and replaced with a four (4) years imprisonment with effect from the date of conviction. The appellant to serve four years’ imprisonment.
Delivered, dated and signed at Kakamega this 31st day of January, 2013
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
J U D G E