[2010] KEHC 571 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant was apprehended at the scene of the crime and had no credible defense, making the conviction safe. On sentence, the court held that none of the grounds warranting appellate interference—such as acting on a wrong principle, overlooking material factors, or manifest excessiveness—had...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 571 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: James Chiteyi Ramoyi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 80 & 215 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Stock Theft, Sentencing Principles, Appeal on 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
James Chiteyi Ramoyi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed for stock theft was excessive or based on a wrong principle.
- 2 Whether there was any basis for interfering with the trial court's discretion on sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant was apprehended at the scene of the crime and had no credible defense, making the conviction safe. On sentence, the court held that none of the grounds warranting appellate interference—such as acting on a wrong principle, overlooking material factors, or manifest excessiveness—had been demonstrated by the appellant. The sentence of seven years' imprisonment was within the statutory discretion of the trial court under Section 278 of the Penal Code. Therefore, there was no basis for the High Court to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction and sentence of seven years' imprisonment are upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLICOFKENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2009
(Appeal from conviction and sentence of the Senior Resident
Magistrate’s Court at Butere in Criminal Case
No. 215 of 2009 [G. O. OYUGI ESQ., RM])
JAMES CHITERI RAMOYI…..…………...........................................................................................……….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………………………………..........................................................................………... RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
1. JAMES CHITEYI RAMOYIwas charged with the offence of stealing stock contrary to S.278 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that on 1. 3.2009 at Shiraa village in Butere District, he stole a calf valued at Kshs.4,500/=, the property of John Otunga.He denied the charge and upon trial was convicted, and sentenced to serve seven (7) years’ imprisonment.
2. His appeal was initially against both conviction and sentence but at the hearing he sought leniency on sentence only.
3. I note from the record that in any event, looking at the evidence of PW1, John Otunga, and PW4, William Odongo, on the night of 2. 3.2009, PW1 was woken up by his cattle mooing and sounding disturbed. He went to their shed and with a torch in his hands, he saw someone hiding behind a cow. He sought help and PW2 and others apprehended the appellant and took him to Khwisero Police Post where PW2, PC Leonard Oruko booked the report and investigated the matter before charging him with the offence of stealing stock.
4. The Appellant was arrested at the scene and red-handed. He had no credible answer to the charge because he admitted being at the scene and said that he had been sent to take the cow from PW1. He never said who sent him and why. His conviction was certainly safe and without error.
5. On sentence, this court can only interfere with the same in the following circumstances’ i.e. where-
i)the trial court has acted on a wrong principle; or
ii)has overlooked some material factors; or
iii)that the sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case (see Macharia vs R. 2003 2E.A 559).
6. The Appellant has failed to demonstrate how any of the above principles would apply to his case and I see no reason to interfere with the discretion conferred upon the trial court by S.278 of the Penal Code.
7. In the event, the Appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
8. Orders accordingly.
Delivered, dated and signed at Kakamega this 4th day of November, 2010.
ISAAC LENAOLA
J U D G E