[2000] KECA 82 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in summarily rejecting the appellant's first appeal because the petition raised substantial legal issues beyond the permissible grounds for summary rejection under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court further found that the sentence of five...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KECA 82 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: George Otieno Awino alias Wajamaa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 146 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal; Judgment of the Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; sentences on Counts One and Two substituted with one year each to run concurrently; conviction and sentence on Count Three quashed.
- Judges
- B Chunga
- Legal Topics
- Summary Rejection of Appeal, Sentencing Illegality, Malicious Damage to Property, Common Assault, Jurisdiction of Appellate 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
George Otieno Awino alias Wajamaa
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal; Judgment of the Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court erred in summarily rejecting the appellant's first appeal under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the sentences imposed for common assault and malicious damage to property were lawful and appropriate.
- 3 Whether the conviction on Count Three (malicious damage to property) was sustainable in the absence of a complainant and supporting evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in summarily rejecting the appellant's first appeal because the petition raised substantial legal issues beyond the permissible grounds for summary rejection under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court further found that the sentence of five years' imprisonment for common assault was illegal, as the statutory maximum is one year, and that the sentence for Count Two was excessive given the circumstances. The conviction on Count Three was quashed due to lack of a complainant and supporting evidence. The Court exercised its appellate powers to substitute lawful and appropriate sentences and to quash the unsustainable...
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; sentences on Counts One and Two substituted with one year each to run concurrently; conviction and sentence on Count Three quashed.
Orders
- Sentence of five years' imprisonment on Count One set aside and substituted with one year's imprisonment.
- Sentence of five years' imprisonment on Count Two set aside and substituted with one year's imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT APPEAL AT NAIROBI
CORAM: CHUNGA, C.J, TUNOI & LAKHA, JJ.A.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2000
BETWEEN
GEORGE OTIENO AWINO ....................................APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC ..........................................................RESPONDENT
(Appeal from an Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu (Hon. Mr. Justice Wambilyangah) dated 11th August, 1999
in
H.C.CR. APPEAL NO. 69 OF 1999) ******************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appellant, George Otien o Awino alias Wajamaa , was after trial convicted by the Principal Magistrate, Maseno, on two counts of common assault contrary tosection 250of the Penal Code and was thereafter sentenced on each count to 5 years' imprisonment. He was also convicted on one count of malicious damage to property contrary to section 339(1) of the Penal Code and on this latter count, too, he was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.
The appellant then promptly appealed to the superior court against his convictions and sentence. The appeal was, however, summarily rejected under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, without the appellant having had the opportunity of being heard in support of it. Section 352 empowers the superior court so to reject an appeal summarily, if and only if, the appeal is brought on the ground
"that the conviction is against the weight of evidence, or that the sentence is excessive."
In his second appeal to this court, the appellant, in his home made grounds of appeal, has averred in the main that the learned judge erred in law in dismissing the appeal summarily when the petition of appeal raised various grave issues of law. We reiterate that a first appeal may be rejected summarily under section 352(2), without the appellant or his advocate being given the opportunity of being heard, only if the memorandum of appeal contains no ground of appeal other than that the conviction is against the weight of evidence or that the sentence is excessive. But, the appeal before us reveals otherwise. Several questions of law were raised in the petition of appeal to the superior court which, consequently, had no jurisdiction to reject the appeal summarily.We agree with the appellant that his appeal before the superior court was for hearing and not for summary rejection. The course adopted by the learned Judge was wrong and hAasd tohcec aaspipoenlelda nitn jumsatyi cbee tsoe rtvhien g apiplellelgaanlt .sentences, and in order to save judicial time, we do not deem it just to remit this matter for disposal by the superior court. We will invoke the powers given to us by section 3(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and deal with the appeal substantively.
The prescribed maximum sentence for common assault under section 250 of the Penal Code is one year's imprisonment. Consequently the sentence of 5 years' imprisonment imposed by the Principal Magistrate on Count One is illegal. We set it aside and substitute therefor a sentence of one year's imprisonment.
As far as Count Two is concerned, we are of the view that the sentence of five years' imprisonment is excessive in the particular circumstances of the case. There were no grave circumstances to justify imposing the maximum penalty. We substitute it with a sentence of one year's imprisonment.
In Count Three, there was no complainant and there was no other evidence to sustain the conviction which we quash. We set aside the sentence imposed on the said Count.
The sentences which we have substituted in Counts One and Two shall be served concurrently. To this limited extent the appeal is allowed.
Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 24th day of November, 2000.
B. CHUNGA
...........................
CHIEF JUSTICE
P. K. TUNOI
...........................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A. A. LAKHA
...............................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is
a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR