[2006] KEHC 489 (KLR)
The court found that the sentences imposed by the trial court—one year for breaking into a building and committing a felony, and seven years for preparation to commit a felony—were within the statutory limits and reasonable in the circumstances. No compelling grounds were advanced to justify interference with the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 489 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Mureithi Nathan; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 8 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Appeal on Sentence, Breaking Into Building, Preparation to Commit Felony
- 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 Mureithi Nathan
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal or excessive.
- 2 Whether there are compelling grounds to interfere with the sentence imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentences imposed by the trial court—one year for breaking into a building and committing a felony, and seven years for preparation to commit a felony—were within the statutory limits and reasonable in the circumstances. No compelling grounds were advanced to justify interference with the trial court's discretion on sentencing. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the sentences upheld.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentence imposed by the trial court is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI Criminal Appeal 8 of 2005
JOSEPH MUREITHI NATHAN………...………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………….………………..RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant, Joseph Mureithi Nathan was convicted and sentenced to one year imprisonment for the offence of breaking into a building and committing a felony contrary to Section 306 (A) of the Penal Code and seven (7) years imprisonment for preparation to commit a felony contrary to Section 308 (2) of the Penal Code. Being dissatisfied with this sentence the appellant preferred this appeal. Being an appeal on sentence, the Court can only interfere with the trial Court’s sentence if it (this court) is satisfied that the same was illegal and excessive.
The maximum sentence under count 1 is seven years while under the second count, the maximum sentence provided by the law is 14 years. Learned counsel for the respondent was of the view that seven years was rather on the higher side.
Personally, I find the sentence passed reasonable in the circumstances of this case. For these reasons no compelling grounds have been advanced for me to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial Court.
The appeal is dismissed.
Dated this 17th day of January, 2006.
W.OUKO
JUDGE
17. 1.2006
Coram
W.Ouko, J.
Appellant in person
Mr.Ogoti
CC: Gladys
Judgment delivered in open Court.
W.OUKO
JUDGE