[2018] KEHC 8507 (KLR)
The court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing the Applicant, taking into account the value of the stolen property and the fact that the Applicant committed a similar offence while the first case was pending. The court found no basis to consolidate the sentences, as the Applicant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 8507 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: James Kegocha Magige; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 487 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Consolidation of Sentences
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Discretion, Repeat Offender, Consolidation of Sentences, Theft of Motor Vehicle
- 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 Kegocha Magige
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Consolidation of Sentences
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the custodial sentences imposed in two separate criminal cases against the Applicant should be consolidated.
- 2 Whether the trial court exercised its sentencing discretion correctly in imposing separate sentences.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing the Applicant, taking into account the value of the stolen property and the fact that the Applicant committed a similar offence while the first case was pending. The court found no basis to consolidate the sentences, as the Applicant was a repeat offender and the offences were committed at different times. The application for consolidation of sentences was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for consolidation of sentences is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.487 OF 2017
JAMES KEGOCHA MAGIGE....................APPLLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.............................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, James Kegocha Magige, with others, was charged with theft of several motor vehicles contrary to Section 278A of the Penal Code. The value of motor vehicles was Kshs.17 million. After full trial, the Applicant was convicted and sentenced to serve four (4) years imprisonment. He was sentenced on 18th April 2017. This was in Criminal Case No.344 of 2013 (Milimani). The Applicant had earlier been convicted of a similar offence of stealing a motor vehicle contrary to Section 278A of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve a custodial sentence. This was in Criminal Case No.305 of 2016 (Milimani). It is the Applicant’s plea that the two custodial sentences imposed in the two separate cases be consolidated. The Applicant explained that he would suffer prejudice if the two sentences were not consolidated. He has been in lawful custody since 2nd February 2016. He was a first offender. He had reformed and had learnt his lesson in the period that he has been in prison. He pleaded with the court to exercise leniency and mercy on him.
Ms. Kimiri for the State opposed the application for consolidation of sentence. She submitted that upon being released on bail pending trial on the first charge, the Applicant committed a similar offence within months of his release. She stated that the Applicant was not a person who appears to be remorseful nor is he a person who will not likely commit another offence if he is released. She urged the court not to interfere with the sentences imposed by the trial court.
This court has carefully considered the facts of this case. When the Applicant was sentenced by the trial court, that court was exercising judicial discretion. This court can only interfere with such sentence if it is established that the sentence was either harsh or extremely lenient as to constitute miscarriage of justice. This court can also interfere with the exercise of such sentencing discretion if it is established that the trial court applied the wrong principles of the law in sentencing the Applicant. In the present application, it was clear to this court that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion when it sentenced the Applicant. The trial court took, inter alia, the value of the property that the complainant lost. This court cannot consolidate the two custodial sentences that was imposed upon the Applicant because the Applicant committed another similar offence during the pendency of the first trial in the other offence. It is clear that the Applicant is a repeat offender who should be kept away from society for as long as the law allows.
In the premises therefore, the Applicant’s application for consolidation of sentences lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
L. KIMARU
JUDGE