[2013] KEHC 1771 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant's role in the offence was peripheral, that he pleaded guilty, expressed remorse, and had already served over nine and a half years in custody. Taking these factors into account, the court held that the sentence already served constituted sufficient punishment for the offence of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 1771 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Kainga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 57 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced to period served; appellant to be released unless otherwise lawfully held
- Judges
- JW Lessit
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Sentencing Principles, Guilty Plea, Remorse and Mitigation
- 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
Joseph Kainga
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 20-year sentence for manslaughter was excessive in the circumstances of the case.
- 2 Whether the appellant's guilty plea, remorse, and time already served warranted a reduction of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant's role in the offence was peripheral, that he pleaded guilty, expressed remorse, and had already served over nine and a half years in custody. Taking these factors into account, the court held that the sentence already served constituted sufficient punishment for the offence of manslaughter. The original 20-year sentence was therefore set aside and substituted with a sentence equivalent to the period already served, resulting in the appellant's immediate release unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced to period served; appellant to be released unless otherwise lawfully held
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is allowed.
- The 20-year imprisonment term is set aside and substituted with imprisonment for the period already served.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2004
LESIIT, J
JOSEPH KAINGA………….....……………………….APPELLANT
V E R S U S
REPUBLIC…………………………………………...RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from CMS Court Meru from the
Judgment and sentence of R. Kimingi Principal Magistrate
delivered on 2nd April 2004. )
JUDGEMENT
The Appellant JOSEPH KAINGApleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter contrary to section 202 of the Penal Code. The Appellant was sentenced to serve an imprisonment term of 20 years. Being aggrieved by the sentence he appealed to this court.
The Appellant in his appeal has urged this court to be lenient because he did not intend to cause the death of the deceased. He stated that he the deceased and his co accused who is now deceased were all drunk when they fought on the material day. He said that after the fight they parted ways and that it was not until the next day that he learnt of the death of the deceased. The Appellant urged that he is remorseful for the offence and that he will never repeat it given a chance. He also said that he was 25 years old when he when he was convicted for this offence. He urged the court to note that he had been in custody since 2002.
Mr. Mungai State Counsel appeared for state in his brief submissions Mr. Mungai urged the court to find that the sentence was justified and that by imposing 20 years imprisonment the court was lenient to the Appellant.
I have considered this appeal. I have noted that the Appellant pleaded guilty to the offence. From the brief facts of the case as lead by the prosecution it was the deceased Appellant who hit the deceased on the head. According to the Prosecution the Appellant hit the deceased on the leg. The cause of death was clearly the injury that was caused by the deceased Appellant. The motive of the Attack is not clear of the facts by the prosecution neither is it very clear whether the Appellant and his co-accused were acting with any common intention.
The Appellant is not challenging the conviction. However it is very clear from the facts of the prosecution case that whatever role he played in the matter was peripheral.
I have noted that the Appellant was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment on 2nd, April, 2004. He has therefore served 9 years and seven months imprisonment. From my observations of this case including the fact that the Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge that he is remorseful for the offence. That he has been in prison for over 9 ½ years and the role that he played in this offence, I am satisfied that the Appellant has served sufficient punishment for the offence. I will allow his appeal against the sentence by setting aside the imprisonment term of 20 years and substituting it with imprisonment for the period already served. The Appellant should be set at liberty forthwith unless he is otherwise lawfully held.
Those are my orders.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 23rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.
J. LESIIT
JUDGE