[2017] KEHC 8240 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court had properly considered the appellant's prior conviction for a similar offence, the probation report, and the circumstances of the case. The three-year sentence imposed was well within the statutory maximum of 14 years and was not manifestly excessive. The court held that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 8240 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Jackson Kirobi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 19 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Stealing in Dwelling House, Plea of Guilty, Recidivism, Probation Reports
- 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
Jackson Kirobi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of three years imprisonment for stealing in a dwelling house was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial court considered relevant factors and applied correct legal principles in sentencing the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court had properly considered the appellant's prior conviction for a similar offence, the probation report, and the circumstances of the case. The three-year sentence imposed was well within the statutory maximum of 14 years and was not manifestly excessive. The court held that there was no basis to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion in sentencing, as all relevant legal principles and factors had been duly considered.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appellant's appeal against sentence is dismissed.
- The sentence of three years imprisonment imposed by the trial court is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2016
JACKSON KIROBI …… APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……….…… RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence by Hon. T. Matheka – CHIEF MAGISTRATE dated 2nd September, 2015 in Nanyuki Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 888 of 2015)
JUDGMENT
1. JACKSON KIROBIwas convicted before the Nanyuki Chief Magistrate’s Court on his own plea of guilt to the charge ofstealing in a dwelling house contrary to section 279(b) of the Penal Code. The trial court sentence him to three years imprisonment.
2. The facts presented before the trial court by the prosecution were that the complainant and his wife left their home in the morning of 14th August 2015 to graze their animals. At 1 p.m. the complainant returned to their home to find that their house had been broken into and his cell phone and its charger had been stolen. Neighbours informed him that the appellant had been seen leaving his house. The appellant was later traced at Doldol area where on being arrested was found to have the said cell phone in his possession.
3. The trial court on convicting the appellant on his own plea of guilty requested on pre-sentencing probation report to be prepared. That report revealed that the appellant had been convicted in case file No. Nanyuki Criminal Case No. 461 of 2015 on a similar offence three months prior, for which he was serving a sentence of probation. That report also revealed that the area chief of the appellant’s home area was of the view that the appellant had developed “stealing behavior” and that he was a threat to the community.
4. The trial court considered that probation report before pronouncing the sentence and stated:-
“He (appellant) was placed on probation but never served the sentence hence though youthful, he is not a first offender and is beginning to behave like a serial burglar.”
5. The appellant by his submissions stated that he had served one year and two months of his 3 years sentence; that the has acquired skills in carpentry and joinery which would enable him to be self-reliant; and that he had obtained spiritual nourishment which had changed his character.
6. The principles to guide this court were set out in the holding of the case REPUBLIC v JAGANI & ANOTHER (2001) KLR 590 as follows:-
“A court of Appeal will only interfere with the discretion of a trial court in sentencing where the sentence was imposed against legal principles, or when relevant factors were not considered or irrelevant and or extraneous matter considered or normally where the sentence is manifestly excessive in view of the circumstances of any case. Before the High Court reviews a sentence imposed by a trial court, it must be satisfied that there exists to a sufficient extent circumstances entitling it to vary the order of the court below.”
7. The maximum sentence of the offence of stealing contrary to section 279(b) of Cap 63 is 14 years. The appellant at the time of his conviction on his own plea of guilt had been convicted of a similar offence for which he was serving a sentence of probation. With the above in mind the sentence of the trial court: 3 years, was not excessive to attract interference of this court. Accordingly the appellant’s appeal against sentence is dismissed. The trial court’s sentence is upheld.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
CORAM
Before Justice Mary Kasango
Court Assistant: Njue
Appellant: Jackson Kirobi ………………………
For the State: …....................................
COURT
Judgment delivered in open court.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE