[2018] KEHC 3430 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants, being young men and first offenders, were suitable candidates for probation rather than serving custodial sentences. The prosecution did not oppose the application for revision, and both parties agreed that rehabilitation would serve the interests of justice. The court exercised...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 3430 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Geoffrey Cheruiyot Mutai; Applicant: Nicholas Kipngeno Langat; Applicant: Richard Kiprono Kimeto; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bomet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 3 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- sentences revised; applicants placed on probation
- Judges
- GO Shikwe
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Probation Orders, Stealing From Person, Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm
- 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
Geoffrey Cheruiyot Mutai
Applicant
Nicholas Kipngeno Langat
Applicant
Richard Kiprono Kimeto
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the applicants were proper and should be revised.
- 2 Whether the applicants are suitable candidates for probation instead of custodial sentences.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants, being young men and first offenders, were suitable candidates for probation rather than serving custodial sentences. The prosecution did not oppose the application for revision, and both parties agreed that rehabilitation would serve the interests of justice. The court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, called for probation reports, and upon consideration, revised the sentences by placing each applicant on probation for eight months for each count, replacing the previous custodial sentences.
Court Disposition
sentences revised; applicants placed on probation
Orders
- The sentences for the three applicants are revised.
- Each applicant is placed on probation for 8 months in respect of each count.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
49 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BOMET
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 3 OF 2018
GEOFFREY CHERUIYOT MUTAI.................................1ST APPLICANT
NICHOLAS KIPNGENO LANGAT.................................2ND APPLICANT
RICHARD KIPRONO KIMETO…………..…….......…3RD APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC............................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The three applicants were charged with the offence of stealing from the person Contrary to Section 279 of the penal code on the 1st count.
On the 2nd count the three were charged with assault causing actual bodily harm Contrary to Section 251 of the penal code.
They pleaded not guilty on the two counts and the case proceeded to full hearing and determination. The 3rd accused was found guilty on the 1st count and was convicted and sentenced to one year imprisonment. The 1st and 2nd accused persons were acquitted.
In respect to the 2nd count the three applicants were sentenced to two years imprisonment for each.
Being dissatisfied with both the conviction and sentence the three applicants have brought this application for revision on the sentence.
The sentence for the 3rd accused was ordered to run consecutively. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for power to call for records thus:-
“The High Court may call for and examine the record of any Criminal Proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding sentence or order recorded or passed and to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court.”
The prosecution does concur with the counsel for the applicants that these are young men who may benefit from rehabilitation.
The application for revision is not opposed. I find that it has merit. Before revising the sentences the court orders that a probation report be availed to the court on each of the applicants.
Mention on 19/6/2018
Ruling delivered dated and signed this 12th day of June 2018 in the presence of learned counsel for the prosecution Mr. Wawire, learned counsel for defence Mr. Koech holding brief for Rono. Court Assistant – Rotich.
M. MUYA
JUDGE
12/6/2018
Court – Mention 19/6/2018
M. MUYA
JUDGE
12/6/2018
19/6/2018
Coram – before Hon. M. Muya – J
Wawire for state
Rotich – CA
Mr. Langat for probation
We pray for mention
Court – Mention on 2/7/2018 for probation report
M. MUYA
JUDGE
19/6/2018
2/7/2018
Coram – Before Hon. M. Muya – J
Wawire for state
Rotich – CA
Mr. Kenduiwo holding brief for Rono for the Accused persons.
Mr. Wawire for the state
Sentencing notes
Sentence for the three applicants are hereby revised.
Each is placed on probation for 8 months in respect of each count.
M. MUYA
JUDGE
2/7/2018