[2005] KEHC 1265 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate properly exercised her discretion in sentencing the appellant to seven years imprisonment for grievous harm. The magistrate considered the appellant's guilty plea, past good record, and the seriousness of the offence, including the severe injuries suffered by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1265 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Hannington Owuori Okumu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 228 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Grievous Harm, Plea of Guilty
- 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
Hannington Owuori Okumu
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of seven years imprisonment for the offence of grievous harm was excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate exercised discretion properly in sentencing the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate properly exercised her discretion in sentencing the appellant to seven years imprisonment for grievous harm. The magistrate considered the appellant's guilty plea, past good record, and the seriousness of the offence, including the severe injuries suffered by the complainant. There was no evidence that the magistrate acted on a wrong principle or overlooked any material factor. Therefore, there were no grounds for the appellate court to interfere with the sentence imposed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed in its entirety.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Criminal Appeal 228 of 2004
HANNINGTON OWUORI OKUMU………….………………….…..APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………….…………….…………………….....RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The AppellantHANNINGTON OWOURI OKUMU was found guilty and convicted on his own plea of guilty for the offence of GRIEVOUS HARMcontrary to Section 234of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. He has lodged his appeal only against the sentence. He has urged the court to find that he was remorseful for the offence which he termed domestic affairs. He also urged the court to consider that he was an old man and the sole bread winner of his family. He submitted that the Court should consider substituting his sentence with a non custodial one.
MISS OKUMUlearned Counsel for the State submitted that she left the matter with the Court. Counsel submitted that even though the Appellant was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment the offence called for a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Counsel submitted that the Appellant had pleaded guilty to the offence.
the stomach and then tried to escape from the scene. The attack on the Complainant was unprovoked and the motive unclear. From the facts given the Appellant stabbed the Complainant after she refused to allow him to spend a night in her house. The Complainant sustained serious injuries and was admitted in hospital for 5 weeks. She also underwent a surgical operation to repair her intestines according to the P3 form produced in Court as an exhibit. The injuries suffered by the Complainant were quite severe.
In SAYEKO vs. REPUBLIC 1989 KLR 306 PORTER and TANK JJ. held inter alia;
“The appellate Court will not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower court unless it is evident that the lower court has acted upon some wrong principle or overlooked some material factor or the sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case.”
The principle of law expressed by my two brothers is good law and I am persuaded that it is applicable to this case. The learned trial magistrate took into consideration the Appellant’s past good record, the fact he pleaded guilty and therefore saved courts time and the fact that the offence was serious. I am satisfied that the learned trial magistrate acted on the right principles in the exercise of her discretion to impose the sentence that she did. I see no grounds upon which I can interfere with the exercise of that discretion.
The appeal against sentence has no merit and is dismissed in its entirety.
Dated at Nairobi this 17th day of October 2005.
………………..
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE
Read, signed and delivered in the presence of;
………………..
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE