[2014] KEHC 5058 (KLR)
The court found that while the sentences of seven years for house breaking and five years for stealing, ordered to run concurrently, were appropriate given the appellant's repeat offending and failure of previous non-custodial sentences to deter him, the trial magistrate erred by not ordering that the sentence in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 5058 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Hemed Ronald Mwamburi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 130 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_partially_allowed
- Judges
- GO Shikwe
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Recidivism, 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
Hemed Ronald Mwamburi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive in light of his previous convictions and the circumstances of the offence.
- 2 Whether the sentences in the present case should run concurrently with the sentence in criminal case number 1114 of 2009.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the sentences of seven years for house breaking and five years for stealing, ordered to run concurrently, were appropriate given the appellant's repeat offending and failure of previous non-custodial sentences to deter him, the trial magistrate erred by not ordering that the sentence in the present case run concurrently with the sentence in criminal case number 1114 of 2009, which arose from the same facts but involved a different complainant. The appeal was allowed only to the extent that the sentences in both cases should run concurrently, thereby preventing the appellant from being doubly punished for offences arising from the same transaction.
Court Disposition
appeal_partially_allowed
Orders
- The sentences of seven years and five years imprisonment, ordered to run concurrently, are upheld.
- The sentence in the present case shall run concurrently with that in criminal case number 1114 of 2009.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2012
HEMED RONALD MWAMBURI ..............................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……….…….....................................................RESPONDENT
(From original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No. 1118 of 2009 of the Senior Resident Magistrate's Court at Kwale – Hon. Obura - SRM)
JUDGMENT
HEMED RONALD MWAMBURI hereinafter referred to as the Appellant was Convicted and Sentenced to seven (7) years Imprisonment for the offence of house breaking and stealing contrary to Section 304 (1) (b) and 279 (b) of the Penal Code.
The particulars were that:-
“On the 10th day of August, 2009 at unknown time at Karanja Estate, Kwale County he broke and entered the dwelling house of NISHUULI HAMADI with intent to steal and did steal therein 3 lessos, 6 ladies dresses, 2 vitenges, 1 Buibui cloth, 2 headscarfs, 2 passbooks all of the value of Ksh. 20,000/= the property of NISHUULI HAMADI”.
The Appellants appeal is on Sentence only. It is noted that he was not a first offender as he had two previous Convictions of house breaking and stealing which were similar to the offence he had been convicted with. He had initially been placed on Community Service for six (6) months but this did not deter him from committing a similar offence.
In the present case he was Convicted and Sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment on the first limb of the charge of house breaking and five (5) years imprisonment for the second limb of stealing contrary to section 279(b) of the Penal Code. Sentence was ordered to run concurrently.
In his mitigation the Appellant contends that he has reformed while in prison.
It is noted that in criminal case number 1114 of 2009 the Appellant was Sentenced to four (4) years imprisonment. That case emanated from the same facts as this one but from a different Complainant.
In Sentencing the Accused in the present case the learned trial magistrate did not bear this in mind when he Sentenced the appellant to serve the Sentences concurrently after completion of the current jail term.
In the present case I do not find any reason to disturb the Sentences of seven (7) years and five (5) years respectively on the 1st and 2nd limb which were ordered to run concurrently. The only disturbance will be the additional orders that the Sentence in the present case shall run concurrently with that in criminal case number 1114 of 2009.
The appeal succeeds to that extend only.
Judgment delivered date ed and signed this 27th day of May, 2014.
…..................
M. MUYA
JUDGE
27TH MAY, 2014
In the presence of:-
Learned State Counsel Miss Mwaura
Appellant present in person
Court clerk Musundi