[2017] KEHC 1458 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant, having been convicted of stealing, malicious damage to property, and trespass, had demonstrated genuine remorse, rehabilitation, and was a first offender. The court noted that the dispute had elements of a civil land disagreement and that the trial court had already conditionally...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1458 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Muthiani Mutiso; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Makueni
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 24 April 2017
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 39 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- sentence suspended and appellant conditionally released
- Judges
- CM Kariuki
- Legal Topics
- Stealing, Malicious Damage to Property, Trespass, Sentencing, Conditional Discharge
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Joseph Muthiani Mutiso
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant for stealing, malicious damage to property, and trespass was appropriate in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the appellant's mitigation and demonstrated remorse warranted a reduction or suspension of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant, having been convicted of stealing, malicious damage to property, and trespass, had demonstrated genuine remorse, rehabilitation, and was a first offender. The court noted that the dispute had elements of a civil land disagreement and that the trial court had already conditionally discharged the appellant on one count. In light of the appellant's mitigation, the support of the state counsel for a suspended sentence, and the appellant's reformation, the court determined that suspending the sentences for counts 1 and 2 and releasing the appellant on condition that he does not commit a similar offence within 12 months was just and appropriate. This approach...
Court Disposition
sentence suspended and appellant conditionally released
Orders
- The sentence in Count 1 and 2 is suspended and the appellant is released on condition that he does not commit a similar offence within a period of 12 months.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MAKUENI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.39 OF 2017
JOSEPH MUTHIANI MUTISO........................................APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
REPUBLIC.....................................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
1. The Appellant was charged with the following offences:-
i. Stealing Contrary to Section 275 of the Penal Code. Particulars Are that on the 17th day of March 2014 at Kilala Sub-location, Kilala Location in Makueni District of the Makueni County, stole Acacia Seyal, Croton Megalocarpus trees; all valued at Kshs.19,064. 15/= the property of Daniel Kimeu Mbuvi.
ii. Malicious Damage to Property Contrary to Section 339(1) of the Penal Code. Particulars Are that On the 17th day of March 2014 at Kilala Sub-location in Makueni district of the Makueni County, willfully and unlawfully damaged 45m length life fence, maize plants and grass, poles of croton of Macrostachys trees all valued at Kshs.40,600/= the property of Daniel Kimeu Mbuvi.
iii. Trespass Upon a Private Land Contrary to Section 3(1) of the Trespass Act Cap 294 Laws of Kenya. Particulars are that on the 17th day of March 2014 at Kilala Location in Makueni District of the Makueni County, trespassed upon a private Land Number Ukia/Kilala/378 the property of Daniel Kimeu Mbuvi.
2. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced to serve in Count 1 and 2 three years imprisonment each and he was conditionally discharged under Section 35(1) of the Penal Code in Count III. This was on 24/12/2015.
3. Being aggrieved by the above decision, the Appellant lodged an appeal and set out five grounds of appeal namely:-
i. He pleaded not guilty.
ii. The charge was fueled by grudge and malice.
iii. The court relied on witness who had score to settle with him.
iv. The case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
v. He did not understand the proceedings.
4. Subsequently he lodged grounds titled mitigation for leniency. During the hearing on 19/04/2017 he abandoned his earlier grounds of appeal and opted to deal with issue of the sentence and relied on his mitigation namely:-
1) THAT,he a first offender hence I pray for leniency.
2) THAT,he is deeply remorseful, repentant and regret my act.
3) THAT,he was fully rehabilitated and reformed through the prison rehabilitation programs.
4) THAT,he has learned the values of honesty, patience and hard work.
5) THAT,he prays to this Honorable Court to reduce or treat the period spent in custody as a punishment already and reduce the sentence to the time served.
6) THAT,he promises to carry on the newly found virtues to society.
7) THAT,he prays to this Honorable Court to issue any other orders it deems fit in his circumstances which he promises to abide by.
5. The state counsel Mr. Orinda proposed that his sentence be suspended and he be awarded a conditional release under Section 35(1) of the Penal Code as the dispute revolves about the land which he disputes it was sold.
6. The court has gone through the record and perused the parties’ submissions.
7. The court has also perused the previous records of the Appellant and noted that even the Trial Court gave a conditional discharge in one of the counts the appellant was facing.
8. The court will give the Appellant a chance to go back home as he avers that he has reformed.
9. The court therefore makes the following orders:-
1) The sentence in Count 1 and 2 is suspended and Appellant released on condition that he does not commit a similar offence within a period of 12 months.
SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED AT MAKUENI THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017.
C. KARIUKI
JUDGE
………………