[2010] KEHC 1634 (KLR)
The court found that, considering the appellant faced two imprisonment terms totaling 9 years for similar offences of stock theft, and taking into account the recovery of the stolen property in one case but not the other, justice would be served by ordering the sentences to run concurrently. This would result in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1634 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Harrison Maina Kamau; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 128 & 134 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal against sentence allowed in part; sentences to run concurrently.
- Legal Topics
- Stock Theft, Sentencing, Concurrent Sentences
- 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
Harrison Maina Kamau
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence in Criminal Case No. 1308 of 2007 should run concurrently with the sentence in Criminal Case No. 1333 of 2007.
- 2 Whether the sentence of 5 years imprisonment was harsh or excessive.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, considering the appellant faced two imprisonment terms totaling 9 years for similar offences of stock theft, and taking into account the recovery of the stolen property in one case but not the other, justice would be served by ordering the sentences to run concurrently. This would result in the appellant serving a total of 5 years imprisonment, rather than consecutive terms totaling 9 years. The court exercised its discretion to ensure the punishment was not excessive and aligned with the rehabilitative purpose of imprisonment.
Court Disposition
Appeal against sentence allowed in part; sentences to run concurrently.
Orders
- The terms of imprisonment in Criminal Case No. 1308 of 2007 and Criminal Case No. 1333 of 2007 shall run concurrently.
- The appellant shall serve a total of 5 years imprisonment in the two appeals.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Criminal Appeal 128 & 134 of 2010
(From original conviction and sentences in Eldama Ravine RM Criminal
Case Nos. 1333 of 2007 and No. 1308 of 2007 – D.M. MACHAGE, RM)
HARRISON MAINA KAMAU………………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………...……..RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
HARRISON MAINA KAMAU, the appellant, was upon trial before the Resident Magistrate at Eldama Ravine on a charge of stock theft contrary to Section 278 of the Penal Code convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.He appealed against both conviction and sentence.
At the hearing he abandoned the appeal against conviction and pleaded that his sentence in this case do run concurrently with the one in Eldama Ravine RM Criminal Case No. 1333 of 2007 in which he was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for another stock theft case.Mr. Nyakundi for the state submitted that the sentence of 5 years imprisonment against the 14 years imprisonment term for the offence is not harsh and urged me to dismiss this appeal.
The object of imprisonment is to reform the offender.The appellant in these appeals faces two imprisonment terms totaling to 9 years imprisonment.In Criminal Case No. 1333 of 2007 (Appeal No. 134 of 2010) the complainant’s cow was recovered.In Criminal Case No. 1308 of 2007 (Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2010) one of the two bulls the appellant stole was not recovered. Taking all these factors into account I order that the terms of imprisonment in the two cases do run concurrently.That means that the appellant shall serve a total of 5 years imprisonment in the two appeals.
DATED and DELIVERED this 17th day of June, 2010.
D. K. MARAGA
JUDGE.