[2018] KEHC 9165 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate properly exercised discretion in sentencing the applicant to a custodial term. However, the court acknowledged the applicant's demonstrated rehabilitation, including learning a trade and expressing readiness to reintegrate into society. The court was persuaded that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 9165 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jackson Musyoka Kithimba; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 481 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- Mention for CSO report on suitability for non-custodial sentence; no final revision of sentence at this stage.
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Revision of Sentence, Remand Custody Credit
- 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 Musyoka Kithimba
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred by not considering the period the applicant spent in remand custody before sentencing.
- 2 Whether the custodial sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or based on wrong principles.
- 3 Whether the applicant is suitable for a non-custodial sentence given his conduct and rehabilitation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate properly exercised discretion in sentencing the applicant to a custodial term. However, the court acknowledged the applicant's demonstrated rehabilitation, including learning a trade and expressing readiness to reintegrate into society. The court was persuaded that the applicant had reformed and considered the possibility of a non-custodial sentence. The matter was adjourned for a community service officer's report to assess the applicant's suitability for a non-custodial sentence, reflecting the court's willingness to reconsider the sentence based on post-conviction conduct and rehabilitation.
Court Disposition
Mention for CSO report on suitability for non-custodial sentence; no final revision of sentence at this stage.
Orders
- The case shall be mentioned on 2nd May 2018 for receipt of a Community Service Officer's Report on the applicant's suitability for a non-custodial sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.481 OF 2017
JACKSON MUSYOKA KITHIMBA..........................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, Jackson Musyoka Kithimba was tried and convicted of stealing three (3) motor vehiclescontrary to Section 278 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve three (3) years imprisonment. The Applicant has applied to this court to have his sentence revised. He stated that the trial court did not take into account the period of one (1) that he was in remand custody before sentencing him to serve the custodial sentence. During the hearing of the application, he stated that during the period that he has been in prison, he has learnt a trade, masonry in particular, and was now prepared to be a useful member of the society. Taking into consideration that he had already served one (1) year of the sentence in prison, and the fact that the stolen motor vehicles were recovered, he was of the view that a non-custodial sentence would be appropriate in the circumstances. Mr. Momanyi for the State opposed the application for revision of sentence. He submitted that the custodial sentence that was imposed on the Applicant was lenient in the circumstances and should not be interfered with taking into account the period that the Applicant was sentenced to serve in prison.
This court has carefully considered the Applicant’s application for revision of sentence. The Court of Appeal in Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another –vs- Republic Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2016(unreported) held at Page 25 thus:
“As what is challenged in this appeal regarding sentence is essentially the exercise of discretion, as a principle this Court will normally not interfere with exercise of discretion by the court appealed from unless it is demonstrated that the court acted on wrong principle; ignored material factors; took into account irrelevant considerations; or on the whole that the sentence is manifestly excessive. In Bernard KimaniGacheru v. Republic, Cr App No.188 of 2000this Court stated thus:
“It is now settled law, following several authorities by this Court and by the High Court, that sentence is a matter that rests in the discretion of the trial court. Similarly, sentence must depend on the facts of each case. On appeal, the appellate court will not easily interfere with sentence unless, that sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case, or that the trial court overlooked some material factor, or took into account, some wrong material, or acted on a wrong principle. Even if, the Appellate Court feels that the sentence is heavy and that the Appellate Court might itself not have passed that sentence, these alone are not sufficient grounds for interfering with the discretion of the trial court on sentence unless, any one of the matters already stated is shown to exist.”
In the present application, it was clear to this court that the trial magistrate’s court properly exercised its discretion when it sentenced the Applicant to serve the custodial sentence. This court notes however that in the period that the Applicant has been in prison, he has learnt his lesson. In fact, he has learnt a trade and is prepared to be a useful member of the society if he is released or ordered to serve a non-custodial sentence. The Applicant admits that he was a bad person before his incarceration. He has had time to reflect on his life in the period that he has been in prison. He is now prepared to be a useful member of the society. This court is persuaded that indeed the Applicant appears to have reformed.
This court will consider whether the Applicant shall be suitable to serve a non-custodial sentence in form of community service. In the circumstances therefore, this case shall be mentioned on 2nd May 2018 when the court shall receive a CSO Report as to the suitability of the Applicant to serve the non-custodial sentence. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2018
L. KIMARU
JUDGE