[2013] KEHC 638 (KLR)
The court found that the conviction was proper as the appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge of forgery. However, the sentence of 24 months imprisonment was deemed harsh in light of the appellant's mitigation, including his ill health and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The court exercised its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 638 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: John Okumu Nandiri; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 42 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal on sentence allowed; conviction upheld; sentence reduced to period served
- Legal Topics
- Forgery, Sentencing, Mitigation of 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
John Okumu Nandiri
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for forgery was proper given the appellant's plea of guilty.
- 2 Whether the sentence of 24 months imprisonment was excessive in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the conviction was proper as the appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge of forgery. However, the sentence of 24 months imprisonment was deemed harsh in light of the appellant's mitigation, including his ill health and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the original sentence and substitute it with the period already served, ordering the appellant's immediate release unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
appeal on sentence allowed; conviction upheld; sentence reduced to period served
Orders
- The sentence of 24 months imprisonment is set aside and replaced with the period already served.
- The appellant shall be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013
(Appeal against conviction and sentence from the Original Criminal Case No. 206 of 2013 in the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court Mumias)
JOHN OKUMU NANDIRI ………………………………………………… APPELLANT
V E R S U S
REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The appellant was charged with the offence of forgery contrary to section 345 as read with section 349 of the Penal Code. The appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve 24 months imprisonment. The grounds of appeal are that the sentence is excessive and the accused seeks the court’s leniency. The appellant also submitted that he is sickly. The appellant contends that he committed the offence as he had a burial ceremony and wanted the meat to assist him. Mr. Oroni, State Counsel, left the matter to the court.
The facts of the case were that on the 11. 3.2013 the appellant wrote a letter purporting it to have been written by Bishop Beneah Salala Okumu of ACK Church Mumias and presented it to a butchery whereby he was given 2 kilograms of meat. When the owner of the butcher went to collect his money from the Bishop he was told that he had not written the letter. The appellant pleaded guilty and in mitigation asked the court to be lenient to him. The appellant has now served 9 months imprisonment. The appeal itself lacks merit on the issue of conviction. However, on sentence I do find that the same is harsh in the circumstances. The sentence is set aside and replaced with the period already served. The accused shall be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Delivered, dated and signed at Kakamega this 18th day of December 2013
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
J U D G E