[2019] KEHC 12214 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 12214 (KLR)

The court found that although the applicant was convicted of serious fraud-related offences and had absconded from court, there was no record of previous convictions. The sentences imposed were not harsh or excessive given the gravity of the offences and the amount defrauded. However, the court held that the option...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 12214 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: J T T; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 268 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Outcome
application allowed; sentence revised to fines with imprisonment in default
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Mitigation, Fraud Offences, Concurrent Sentences, Option of Fine, Proportionality in Sentencing
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Sentencing Principles Mitigation Fraud Offences Concurrent Sentences Option of Fine Proportionality in Sentencing

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J T T

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was denied the opportunity to mitigate before sentencing due to absence caused by illness.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive in the circumstances, considering the applicant's age, health, and lack of previous convictions.
  3. 3 Whether the court should have considered the option of a fine as a first line penalty for the offences committed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant was convicted of serious fraud-related offences and had absconded from court, there was no record of previous convictions. The sentences imposed were not harsh or excessive given the gravity of the offences and the amount defrauded. However, the court held that the option of a fine should have been considered as a first line penalty, especially since the applicant was a first offender and the law did not mandate a custodial sentence. The applicant's illness and age were considered but weighed against his failure to cooperate with the court. The court therefore revised the sentence to impose fines for each count, with specified terms of...

Court Disposition

application allowed; sentence revised to fines with imprisonment in default

Orders

  • In count I, the applicant shall pay a fine of Kshs. 2 million, in default, serve one year imprisonment.
  • In counts II and V, the applicant shall pay a fine of Kshs. 500,000 each, in default, serve 6 months imprisonment respectively.