[2006] KEHC 1745 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence of three years imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, was not harsh or excessive given the statutory maximums of 10 and 14 years for the respective offences. The trial court exercised its discretion appropriately, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1745 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Fred Wanyama Wamayengo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 11 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Burglary, Stealing, Appeals on 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
Fred Wanyama Wamayengo
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was harsh and excessive in the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence of three years imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, was not harsh or excessive given the statutory maximums of 10 and 14 years for the respective offences. The trial court exercised its discretion appropriately, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were in accordance with the law. The appeal on sentence therefore lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- Right of appeal in 14 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUNGOMA
Criminal Appeal 11 of 2005
FRED WANYAMA WAMAYENGO............................................................APPELLANT
VS
REPUBLIC...........................................................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant was charged with burglary and stealing contrary to section 304 (2) and section 279 (b) of the Penal code.
The particulars on count 1 are that on the night of 31st December, 2003 and 1st January 2004 at Kamusinga Boys’ High School in Bungoma District within Western Province jointly broke and entered the dwelling house of one Nelson Mulongo with intent to steal therein and did steal therein one mattress, one mosquito net, one blanket and two bed sheets all valued at Ksh.3,850/= the properties of the said Nelson Mulongo.
The particulars on count 2 are that on the 4th day of January 2004, at Kimilili Township in Bungoma District within Western Province, otherwise in the course of stealing dishonestly retained one mattress, one mosquito net and one bed sheet knowing or having reason to believe them to have been stolen goods.
The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence. At the hearing he(appellant) abandoned appeal on conviction. He pursued appeal on sentence only.
On sentence, he urged that the same was harsh and excessive in all the circumstances of the case.
The state supported the sentence. Mr. Onderi urged that since the appellant was charged under section 304 (2) and section 279 of the Penal Code carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years and 14 years respectively, the sentence was deserved and indeed lenient.
That there were (2) counts of the same charge and the appellant was convicted on both. First count: 3 yearsimprisonment on each limb. Second count: 3 years imprisonment on each limb. The trial court ordered that the sentence was to run concurrently. The appellant is serving 3 years on both counts. On the premises the sentence cannot be said to be harsh and excessive. Mr. Onderi urged that the appeal be dismissed.
I have on my part scanned through the proceedings and the law. I take the position that the law provides for the maximum sentence of 10 years as relates to section 304 (2) and 14 years as relates top section 279. There were two (2) counts of the same charge. The appellant was convicted on both and sentenced to serve 3 years on first count and 3 years on the second counts. The sentence to run concurrently. A sentence of 3 years on the premises cannot be harsh and excessive.
I find that the appeal has no merit. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal. Right of appeal in 14 days.
DATED and DELIVERED at BUNGOMA this 2nd day of May 2006.
N.R.O. OMBIJA
JUDGE
Appellant Fred Wanyonyi in person.
Mr. Onderi for Republic