[2002] KEHC 387 (KLR)
The court found that although the appellant was convicted of two offences—burglary and stealing—these offences arose from a single transaction. The appellant was a first offender, and almost all the stolen goods were recovered after he led the police to them. The court considered these mitigating factors, as well as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 387 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Karanja Kibue; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 591 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- sentence varied; sentences to run concurrently; corporal punishment upheld
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Burglary, Stealing, Concurrent Sentences, First Offender, 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 Karanja Kibue
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the consecutive sentences imposed for burglary and stealing should be ordered to run concurrently given the circumstances of the case.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive in light of the appellant being a first offender and the offences arising from a single transaction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the appellant was convicted of two offences—burglary and stealing—these offences arose from a single transaction. The appellant was a first offender, and almost all the stolen goods were recovered after he led the police to them. The court considered these mitigating factors, as well as the State Counsel's indication that concurrent sentences could be appropriate. The court held that this was a suitable case for the sentences to be served concurrently rather than consecutively. However, the court found no reason to interfere with the length of the sentence for each count (three years). The practical effect of the order is to reduce the total custodial period...
Court Disposition
sentence varied; sentences to run concurrently; corporal punishment upheld
Orders
- The two sentences of three years each shall be served concurrently.
- The appellant shall receive two strokes of the cane as ordered by the lower court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 591 OF 2000
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No. 2820 of 2000 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Mombasa – A. W. Ngugi, Ms. – R.M.)
JOSEPH KARANJA KIBUE………………………………….APPELLANT =V E R S U S= REPUBLIC………………………………………………….RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT OF COURT
The Appellant was charged with Burglary and Stealing contrary to Section 305(2) and Section 279(b) of the Penal Code. He was convicted of both counts and sentenced to three years in respect to each offence the sentences to run consecutively. This means that the total sentence is 6 years with two strokes of the cane.
When he was arguing his appeal the appellant abandoned his appeal on conviction and requested this court to consider only the sentence and reduce it because it was too long considering the circumstances of the case.
The facts of the case indicate that the appellant was caught in the process of stealing after the burglary. Goods stolen were almost all recovered after the appellant led the Police thereto. Although he did not plead guilty in the lower court, he abandoned the main part of the appeal before this court. He is a first offender. Although two offences ended up being committed, they arose from one single transaction. The State Counsel indicated that in its discretion this court may consider to order for a concurrent serving of the sentence.
I have considered all the mitigating factors and taken into account the opinion of the State Counsel. I am of the view that this may be a suitable case where the sentences should be served concurrently. I have no reason to interfere with the actual sentence of three years for each count.
I accordingly order that the two sentences of three years each be served by the Accused concurrently. The practical effect of this is to reduce the period to three years. The Appellant must receive the two strokes of the cane as ordered by the lower court. It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 21st day of March, 2002.
D. A. ONYANCHA J U D G E