[2016] KEHC 861 (KLR)
The appellate court found no error in principle, no special circumstances, and no manifest excessiveness in the sentence imposed by the trial court. The trial court had considered the appellant's mitigation, including his age, remorse, and status as a first offender, but the seriousness of the offences warranted the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 861 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Jacob Kisoso Kuntai; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 22 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Robbery, Rape, Appeal Against Sentence
- 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
Jacob Kisoso Kuntai
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant for robbery and rape was excessive or warranted interference by the appellate court.
- 2 Whether the appellant's mitigation and personal circumstances justified a reduction or alteration of the custodial sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court found no error in principle, no special circumstances, and no manifest excessiveness in the sentence imposed by the trial court. The trial court had considered the appellant's mitigation, including his age, remorse, and status as a first offender, but the seriousness of the offences warranted the sentences imposed. The sentences were within the statutory limits, and the court had exercised its discretion properly. Therefore, there was no basis for the appellate court to interfere with the sentences, and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
- The appellant shall serve the entire sentence as given by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2014
JACOB KISOSO KUNTAI……………….......….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………...…..RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original Conviction and Sentence of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Machakos by Hon. P.M. Mugure (RM)) in Criminal Case No. 563 of 2013 dated 11th August, 2014)
************************************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1. The appellant Jacob Kisoso Kuntai was charged in count 1 with the offence of Robbery which charge. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve seven (7) years in jail. In count II he was charged with the offence of Rape contrary to Section 3(1) as read with Section 3(3) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. He was convicted and sentenced to fifteen (15) years. The sentences in both counts are to run concurrently. The appellant does not appeal against conviction in both counts, but not being satisfied with the sentencing on both counts the appellant appealed against sentencing basing the same on the grounds that he is a young person who has learned a lesson and prays to be given a second chance to rejoin the society as he is the sole bread winner of his old parents aged 75-90 years old. He also stated that this was his first offence and he promised not to engage in such activities again. The appellant also prayed for a non-custodial sentence and that he was remorseful.
2. The State opposed the appeal stating that the appellant was convicted of an offence carrying a minimum sentence of ten (10) years and a maximum of life sentence. After the court had considered the appellant’s mitigation he was given fifteen (15) years. The ground of remorsefulness or that he is now a trained carpenter are not good enough grounds to allow the appeal. Although the court has powers to interfere with sentence it can only do so where there are special circumstances or where there was an error in principle in arriving at the sentence or where the sentence is manifestly excessive. None of these are in this particular appeal. The State submitted that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction and sentence be upheld.
3. I have considered the appeal, and the opposition to it. The trial court did not abuse its power in sentencing. The charges that faced the appellant were very serious. In count 1 he pleaded guilty, while in count No. 2 he was convicted. This court has no reason to interfere with the sentence of fifteen (15) years given in count II.
4. The appeal is not merited and the same is dismissed. The appellant shall serve the entire sentence as given by the trial court.
5. The appellant has the right to appeal to Court of Appeal.
THATis the judgment of the court.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016
E.K.O. OGOLA
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Mr. Machogu for State
Appellant present in person
Court Assistant – Mr. Munyao