[2020] KEHC 9741 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate failed to adequately consider the applicant's status as a first offender and the relatively modest value of the stolen property when imposing the maximum sentence of three years imprisonment. The applicant's remorse, family circumstances, and the period already served (close...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 9741 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joel Wanyonyi Namasaka; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 62 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application allowed; sentence revised
- Judges
- AW Macharia
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Revision of Sentence, First Offender Treatment
- 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
Joel Wanyonyi Namasaka
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the three-year custodial sentence imposed on the applicant was harsh and excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate failed to consider the applicant's status as a first offender and the value of the stolen property in sentencing.
- 3 Whether sufficient grounds exist to warrant revision of the sentence under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate failed to adequately consider the applicant's status as a first offender and the relatively modest value of the stolen property when imposing the maximum sentence of three years imprisonment. The applicant's remorse, family circumstances, and the period already served (close to nine months) were sufficient to serve the purpose of deterrence. Consequently, the sentence was deemed excessive and not commensurate with the offence. The court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the custodial sentence and ordered the applicant's immediate release unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
application allowed; sentence revised
Orders
- The three-year jail term is set aside.
- The applicant is to be forthwith set free unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION 62 OF 2020
JOEL WANYONYI NAMASAKA..............................................APPLICANT.
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.................................................................................RESPONDENT.
RULING
1. By a Chamber Summons application dated 13th February, 2020 and filed on 9th March, 2020 the Applicant seeks a prayer that his sentence be revised pursuant to Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application is supported by the Applicants affidavit sworn on 13th February, 2020. He depones that he is a young family man aged 33 years with two children and the sole breadwinner of his family. In addition, he takes care of his aged blind father. He alludes that eth three years imprisonment was harsh and excessive in the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, whilst in prison, he had learnt many skills which would guide him and mold him once he left prisons. prisons wherefrom he prays that the court substitutes the custodial sentence with a noncustodial one. Finally, it is his submission that he is remorseful and fully rehabilitated.
2. In his oral submissions in court, he reiterated the submissions contained in the supporting affidavit.
3. Ms. Ndobi for the Respondent opposed the application stating that the sentence was lawful. She submitted that one of the purposes of a sentence is deterrence. And that considering the circumstances of the case, the sentence was commensurate with the sentence. It was her view that unless for a very good and sufficient reason as was held in the case of Ogallo vs Republic [1954] EALR 270 the court cannot fetter the judicial discretion of a trial magistrate in sentencing.
4. The applicant was charged alongside another with the offence of stealing contrary to Section 268(1) as read with Section 275 of the Penal Code. the particulars of the offence that on diverse dates between 15th and 31st December, 2013 at Nairobi County jointly stole cash Kshs. 373,500/= a purse, one torch and a pair of shoes all valued at Kshs. 402,950/= the property of Rodger Pearson. In the alternative he was charged with handling goods contrary to Section 321(1) asread withSection 322(2) of the Penal Code. it was alleged that on 8th January, 2014 at Lower Kabete Spring Valley area within Nairobi County, otherwise than in the course of stealing dishonestly received and retained cash Kshs. 65,000/= knowing it to be stolen goods, the property of Rodger Pearson.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the applicant and his co-accused were found guilty of the main count and convicted accordingly. He was sentenced to serve three (3) years imprisonment.
6. Under Section 275 of the Penal Code, any person convicted of the offence of stealing is liable to imprisonment for three (3) years”. A look at the record of proceedings at the trial court shows that no record of previous convictions of the applicant was presented before the court. Hence, in sentencing him, the court ought to have treated him as a first offender. In offering his mitigation, it was submitted that he was a young man aged 32 years with a young family. His mother had just passed on, he pleaded remorse and urged for a non-custodial sentence. The court on its part observed that the offence was serious adding that both accused persons had bleached trust that the complainant had in them.
7. My view is that the learned trial magistrate failed to have regard to the fact that the applicant was a first offender and the that the value of the subject matter was not too large as to attract the maximum sentence provided in law. Therefore, the sentence imposed was not commensurate with the offence.
8. Having regard that the applicant is remorseful, and has since served close to nine months of the sentence, serves the purpose of deterrence. In the circumstances, I find that that amounts to sufficient sentence.
9. In the result, this application must succeed. I set aside the three years jail term and substitute the same with an order that the applicant be and is hereby forthwith set free unless otherwise lawfully held. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2020
HON. G. NGENYE MACHARIA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
1. Applicant in person.
2. Miss Akunja for the Respondent.