[2017] KEHC 5035 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had already benefitted from a reduction of sentence on revision and had not demonstrated any error in principle or miscarriage of justice that would warrant further interference with the sentence. The appellate court emphasized that it should only interfere with sentencing where...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 5035 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Fredrick Omido Lukhasifa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Migori
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 55 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- AC Mrima
- Legal Topics
- Malicious Damage to Property, Sentencing Principles, Appeal 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
Fredrick Omido Lukhasifa
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellate court should interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
- 2 Whether the appellant has demonstrated grounds for further reduction of sentence as per established legal principles.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had already benefitted from a reduction of sentence on revision and had not demonstrated any error in principle or miscarriage of justice that would warrant further interference with the sentence. The appellate court emphasized that it should only interfere with sentencing where there is evidence of misdirection, consideration of irrelevant factors, or manifest excessiveness, none of which were present in this case. The trial court's exercise of discretion in sentencing was found to be proper and judicial, and thus the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is hereby dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MIGORI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2015
FREDRICK OMIDO LUKHASIFA….........APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ...........................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The Appellant herein, FREDRICK OMIDO LUKHASIFA was charged with offence of malicious damage to property contrary to Section 339(1) of the Penal Code. He admitted the charge and he was convicted on his own plea of guilty. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison.
2. The Appellant then preferred a revision on the sentence before the High Court and the same was successful. The sentence was reduced to 3 years on 17/07/2015.
3. Unrelenting, the appellant then filed this appeal seeking a further review of the sentence. I have considered the appeal and the written submissions and find that the Appellant has not demonstrated the principles laid in the case of Wanjema v. Republic (1971) EA 493 upon which the first appellate Court may act on in dealing with an appeal on sentence. An appellate Court can only interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial Court if it is satisfied that in arriving at the sentence the trial Court did not take into account a relevant fact or that it took into account an irrelevant factor or that in all the circumstances of the case, the sentence is harsh and excessive. However, the appellate Court must not lose sight of the fact that in sentencing, the trial Court exercised discretion and as long as the discretion is exercised judicially and not capriciously, the appellate Court should be slow to interfere with that discretion.
4. The appeal is therefore unsuccessful moreso given that the appellant has already benefitted from the review of the sentence. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED, DATEDand SIGNEDat MIGORI this 10th day of April 2017.
A. C. MRIMA
JUDGE