[2008] KEHC 922 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence imposed by the Chief Magistrate was clear and lawful, with the applicant to serve five years on each count proved on each separate file, with the sentences to run concurrently. The applicant herself confirmed she was serving a fifteen-year sentence, not 105 years as suggested by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 922 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Francisca Kavuu Mutua; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Revision Case 19 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision
- Outcome
- application for revision dismissed
- Judges
- I Lenaola
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Sentencing, Revision Jurisdiction, Penal Code Interpretation
- 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
Francisca Kavuu Mutua
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the applicant in the three criminal cases were lawful and properly interpreted by the prison authorities.
- 2 Whether the court should intervene to impose an option of a fine in place of the custodial sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence imposed by the Chief Magistrate was clear and lawful, with the applicant to serve five years on each count proved on each separate file, with the sentences to run concurrently. The applicant herself confirmed she was serving a fifteen-year sentence, not 105 years as suggested by the Principal State Counsel. The court held that there was no basis for intervention, as no special circumstances were presented to warrant the imposition of a fine or alteration of the sentence under the revisionary jurisdiction. The number of deaths involved was significant, and mere reformation or a plea for forgiveness was insufficient to justify leniency or revision of the...
Court Disposition
application for revision dismissed
Orders
- The sentence imposed by the Chief Magistrate is upheld.
- No option of a fine is granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
Revision Case 19 of 2008
FRANCISCA KAVUU MUTUA...................................APPLICANT
VERSUS REPUBLIC..................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING ON A REVISION
1. On 26. 2.2008 the Principal State Counsel, Machakos addressed a letter to the Deputy Registrar of this Court raising doubts as to the legality of the sentences meted out to Fransisca Kavuu Mutua in Machakos CMs Court Criminal Cases Nos. 2092, 2094,2095 of 2005. The said letter was not brought to my attention until the said Francisca Kavuu Mutua brought the same issues to this court by way of an Application for revision placed before me on 14. 10. 2008.
2. I have called for the lower court record and I note that the offender had faced multiple counts of the offences of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code in each of the three files mentioned above. After a lengthy trial she was found guilty and in sentencing her, the learned Chief Magistrate noted as follows:-
“I also take into account the period spent in custody which is close to 2 years… ideally I would have sentenced her to serve 7 years imprisonment but considering that she has been in custody for almost 2 years, I sentence her to serve 5 years on each count proved on each separate file. The sentences to run concurrently.”
3. The sentence was meted out in Cr.Case No.2092/2005 but the separate files referred to include Cr.case no. 2094/2005 and 2095/2005 which also had twelve counts of the offence of manslaughter. In his letter of 26. 2.2008, the Principal State Counsel noted that the subject is now serving a total of 105 years in prison and his view was that the cumulative period of sentence should be 5 years for each file and therefore in total 15 years for the 3 separate files.
4. I have elsewhere above reproduced the exact wording used by the Chief Magistrate and indeed in her Application now before me, the Applicant sates as follows:-
“That I was convicted to serve fifteen (15) years.
That I am requesting this honourable court to impose an option of a fine.”
5. The Principal State Counsel’s view that the sentence imposed may have been misconstrued by the Prison Authorities has no basis and that is all I can say because the Applicant has indeed confirmed that she is serving the lawfully imposed sentence. Should I intervene and impose the option of a fine? I do not think so. The number of deaths involved in this case is way too large for me to show leniency and I have not been told what special circumstances should warrant my intervention under section 362 and section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not enough for the Applicant to state that she is reformed and begs forgiveness.
6. In the event, I shall not reverse the sentence meted as is the Applicant’s prayer.
7. Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 21stday of October 2008.
Isaac Lenaola
Judge