[2017] KEHC 6647 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court failed to consider the period of six months the appellant spent in custody prior to sentencing, as required by section 333 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Additionally, the appellant was a first-time offender, and the sentence of five years was deemed excessive in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6647 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Israel Harrison Lemoliti; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 170 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Period Spent in Custody, First Offender Consideration
- 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
Israel Harrison Lemoliti
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider the period the appellant spent in custody before sentencing.
- 2 Whether the sentence of 5 years imprisonment was excessive given the appellant was a first offender.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court failed to consider the period of six months the appellant spent in custody prior to sentencing, as required by section 333 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Additionally, the appellant was a first-time offender, and the sentence of five years was deemed excessive in the circumstances. The court held that the period already served, amounting to two years and six months, was sufficient punishment. Consequently, the original sentence was set aside and substituted with a sentence equivalent to the period already served, and the appellant was ordered to be released unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The trial court's sentence is set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to the period already served.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2016
ISRAEL HARRISON LEMOLITI …………….….………… APPELLANT
versus
REPUBLIC………….………………………...…………… RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence by Hon. E. BETT – SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE dated 2nd April 2015 in Nanyuki Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 935 of 2014)
JUDGMENT
1. ISRAEL HARRISON LEMOLITI the appellant herein was convicted after trial before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nanyuki of the offence of breaking into a building and committing a felony contrary to section 306 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve 5 years imprisonment.
2. By this appeal he appeals against that sentence. In support of his appeal he filed documents which read like a proposal for setting up a non-government organisation. From those documents it seems that the appellant desires on being released from prison to assist his community, the Maasai, to be alleviated from difficulties that they encounter. In his submissions in support of his appeal the appellant stated that he is a first offender and an orphan. He stated that during his incarceration he left behind siblings who rely on him.
3. The appellant’s appeal against sentence was not opposed by the Senior Principal Prosecution Counsel Mr. Tanui.
4. The section under which the appellant was charged, that is section 206 of the Penal Code, attracts a maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment. The appellant was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. It is noteworthy that the appellant was arrested on 22nd October 2014. He was sentence by the trial court after trial on 2nd April 2015. It seems that in passing the sentence of 5 years the trial court did not consider the period the appellant was held in custody during his trial as required under section 333 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The proviso under that section is the in following terms:-
“provided that where the person sentenced under sub section 1 has prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.”
5. The appellant was in custody for 6 months before he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. He has to date served 2 years jail terms. Bearing in mind that the appellant was a first time offender the sentence of 5 years was excessive in the circumstances. Since the appellant has served 2 years and 6 months, in this courts view that is sufficient sentence in the circumstances. It is because of the above that this court is entitled to the variation of the trial court’s sentence.
6. Accordingly the trial court’s sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is hereby sentenced to the period so far served. An order is hereby made for the appellant to be released from custody unless he is otherwise lawfully held.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2017.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
CORAM
Before Justice Mary Kasango
Court Assistant: Ndungu
Appellant: Israel Harrison Lemoliti …………
For the State: …...............................................
COURT
Judgment delivered in open court.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE