[2017] KEHC 3804 (KLR)
The High Court found that the offences for which the appellant was convicted—illegal possession of a firearm and illegal possession of ammunition—arose from the same transaction. The trial magistrate ordered the sentences to run consecutively without providing any reasons or justification for departing from the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 3804 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Julius Losherua Lekipila; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 103 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed_in_part
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Sentences, Consecutive Sentences, Illegal Possession of Firearm, Illegal Possession of Ammunition
- 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
Julius Losherua Lekipila
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences for offences arising from the same transaction should run concurrently or consecutively.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate erred in ordering consecutive sentences without providing reasons.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the offences for which the appellant was convicted—illegal possession of a firearm and illegal possession of ammunition—arose from the same transaction. The trial magistrate ordered the sentences to run consecutively without providing any reasons or justification for departing from the general principle that sentences for offences committed in the same transaction should run concurrently. The absence of reasons for consecutive sentencing justified appellate interference. The High Court therefore ordered that the sentences of seven years imprisonment on each count should run concurrently, allowing the appeal to that extent.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed_in_part
Orders
- The sentences of seven years imprisonment on count two and seven years imprisonment on count three shall run concurrently.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2016
JULIUS LOSHERUA LEKIPILA ...........................APPELLANT
Versus
REPUBLIC............................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence in Maralal Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 908 of 2014By Hon. C N Ndegwa Principal Magistrate on 18th May 2016).
JUDGMENT
1. JULIUS LOSHERUA LEKIPILA, the appellant herein, was convicted before the Principal Magistrate Court at Maralal on two counts. On the one count he was charged with the offence of illegal possession of a fire arm and on the other count he was charged with the offence of illegal possession of ammunition. Both counts being contrary to Section 89 (1) of the Penal Code.The trial court sentenced the appellant to seven years imprisonment on each counts sentence to run consecutively. The trial court ordered that those sentences were to start after the appellant completed his sentence of 12 months case for an offence of escaping from lawful custody.
2. The appellant in support of his appeal only sought that his sentence be ordered to run concurrently.
3. His plea was supported by the Principal prosecution Counsel Mr. Tanui.
4. The courts have frequently held that it is good practice for sentences for offences in the same transaction to be ordered to run concurrently. This was the issue discussed in the case PETER MBUGUA KABUI V REPUBLIC [2016] eKLR thus:
In the case of Sawedi Mukasa s/o Abdulla Aligwaisa [1946] 13 EACA 97, the then Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa in a judgment read by Sir Joseph Sheridan stated that the practice is where a person commits more than one offence at the same time and in the same transaction, save in very exceptional circumstances, to impose concurrent sentences. That is still good practice.
As a general principle, the practice is that if an accused person commits a series of offences at the same time in a single act/transaction a concurrent sentence should be given. However, if separate and distinct offences are committed in different criminal transactions, even though the counts may be in one charge sheet and one trial, it is not illegal to mete out a consecutive term of imprisonment
5. The learned trial Magistrate ordered the sentences of the appellant to run consecutively without assigning any particular reason or rationale. Because of lack of reason this court is justified to interfere with the learned trial Magistrate’s discretion in sentencing the appellant.
6. Accordingly the court hereby orders that the trial court’s sentence of Julius Losherua Lekipila of 7 years imprisonment on count two and 7 years imprisonment in count three shall run concurrently. To that extent the appellant’s appeal does succeed.
Dated and Delivered at Nanyuki this 2nd August 2017
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Coram
Before Justice Mary Kasango
Court Assistant: Njue
Appellant: Julius Losherua Lekipila
For state: ...........................................
Language ..........................................
COURT
Judgment delivered in open court
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE