[1984] KEHC 41 (KLR)
The court held that the appellant, a corporal in the Kenya Air Force, knowingly participated in a mutiny by arming himself and accepting deployment in furtherance of the mutiny, despite having the opportunity to dissociate himself from the unlawful acts. The appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and supported...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1984] KEHC 41 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kabulu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 76 of 1984
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Mutiny, Armed Forces Offences, Plea of Guilty, Sentencing Principles
- 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
Kabulu
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's conviction for taking part in a mutiny was proper given his plea of guilty.
- 2 Whether the sentence of 8 years imprisonment and dismissal from the Armed Forces was manifestly excessive or based on the wrong principle.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the appellant, a corporal in the Kenya Air Force, knowingly participated in a mutiny by arming himself and accepting deployment in furtherance of the mutiny, despite having the opportunity to dissociate himself from the unlawful acts. The appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and supported by the facts, making the conviction proper. Regarding sentence, the court found that the appellant's rank, length of service, and conduct during the mutiny justified the sentence of 8 years imprisonment and dismissal from the Armed Forces. The sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor based on a wrong principle. The appeal against both conviction and sentence was therefore...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL APPEAL 76 OF 84
Kabulu...........................................Appellant
v
Republic..........................................Respondent
4
March 23, 1984 J E Gicheru J delivered the following Judgment.
The appellant No 022765 Corporal Oliver Munyaka Kabulu was convicted on his own plea of guilty to the offence of taking part in a mutiny c/s 25 (2) of the Armed Forces Act, Chapter 199 of the Laws of Kenya by a Court Martial sitting at Langata Barracks on November 22, 1982. He was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment together with dismissal from the Armed Forces. The appellant’s conviction and sentence together with his dismissal from the Armed Forces were confirmed on November 23, 1982. On review, the reviewing Authority did not interfere with the appellant’s sentence. The appellant now appeals to this court against conviction and sentence.
On the night of July 31, 1982 the appellant was at a party at the Sports Pavilion at Kenya Air Force Eastleigh Air Base. At about 2. 30 am on August 1, 1982, Senior Private Ochuka and Senior Private Geno stormed at this party, Spte Geno who was armed with a G 3 rifle started firing at he ceiling in the Sports Pavilion and in the course of so doing short dead Corporal Kimwele Kang’aswa.
The appellant got scared and hid himself in the bathroom for a period of 20 minutes. Later he went to his block where he slept. He was awoken by somebody who ordered him to put on his uniform and proceed to the armory. He complied and at the armoury the appellant armed himself with a self-loading rifle but without ammunition. Thereafter he boarded a vehicle which took him to town at Nairobi – where he was deployed to guard the All Saints Cathedral. He was deployed here at about 3. 00 am and while so deployed he slept on a verandah until 6. 30 am when he boarded a vehicle which took him back to Eastleigh Air Base where he arrived at about 7. 00 am. At the Air Base the appellant was deployed at the All Saints Cathedral and after being there for some time he went to Uhuru Park where he stayed until 10. 00 am. The appellant then went to Haile Selassie Avenue/Uhuru Highway roundabout where he was arrested by the members of the Kenya Army. As indicated above the appellant was a Corporal and had served the Kenya air Force for a period of nearly 5 years. He was 28 years old.
The appellant’s experiences in the early hours of August 1, 1982 at the Sports pavilion at Eastleigh Air Base were clear pointer to him of what was happening at he air Base. His subsequent activities were with the full knowledge of the Mutiny that was taking place at the Air base. His arming himself with a self-loading rifle although without ammunition and his being twice deployed at the All Saints Cathedral were acts in support and in furtherance of the Mutiny that was taking place on August 1, 1982. His conviction of the offence set out above based on this plea of guilty to the said offence was proper and his appeal against conviction is without any merit.
As concerns sentence, the appellant was corporal with the Kenya Air Force, he was aged 28 years and had served Air Force for a period of about 5 years. Although he might have been drunk at the commencement of the events of August 1, 1982 he soon thereafter had ample opportunity to collect himself together and instead of taking appropriate measures as would have been expected of him in situations such as the one that was taking place on August 1, 1982 he opted to be involved in it. Indeed, had the appellant acted accordingly to what was expected of him the situation of August 1, 1982 would have been arrested at the Sports Pavilion at Eastleigh Air Base as early as 2. 30 am on that day before it escalated. In these circumstances the appellant’s sentence of 8 years imprisonment together with dismissal from the Armed Forces cannot be said to have been manifestly excessive, or based on the wrong principle. The appellant merited the sentence aforesaid.
The appellant’s appeal against conviction and sentence is therefore dismissed in its
entirety.