[2005] KEHC 1984 (KLR)
The court found that although the appellant was convicted of supermarket breaking and committing a felony and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, he had already served 1 year and 3 months. Considering the circumstances of the case, including the period already served and the fact that the maximum sentence was 7...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1984 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kabuki Gathano Kabuki; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 126 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- sentence reduced to period already served; appellant to be released unless lawfully held
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Burglary and Breaking, Handling Stolen Goods
- 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
Kabuki Gathano Kabuki
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 3 years imprisonment for supermarket breaking and committing a felony was excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the appellant should be placed on probation or have his sentence reduced.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the appellant was convicted of supermarket breaking and committing a felony and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, he had already served 1 year and 3 months. Considering the circumstances of the case, including the period already served and the fact that the maximum sentence was 7 years, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already served. The court ordered the appellant's immediate release unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
sentence reduced to period already served; appellant to be released unless lawfully held
Orders
- The sentence of 3 years imprisonment is reduced to the period already served.
- The appellant shall be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.126 OF 2004
KABUKI GATHANO KABUKI………………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………………………..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The Appellant has appealed against the original conviction and sentence in Criminal case No.1626 of 2003 that was passed upon him by the Senior Resident Magistrate, Molo viz, Mr. R. Kirui. In that case, the Appellant had been charged for the offence of Super Market breaking and committing a Felony, contrary to Section 306(a) of the Penal Code. The alternative charge was that of handling stolen goods, contrary to Section 322(2) of the Penal Code.
The facts of the Prosecution case as stated in the charge sheet for the main count are as follows:-
“On the night of 2nd and 3rd July, 2003 at Molo Stores Super Market in Nakuru District of the Rift Valley Province, jointly with others not before court broke and entered into a building namely Molo Stores Super Market of MBUGUA THUO and did steal from therein 117 pad-locks, 158 Safaricom scratch cards, 20 Kencell scratch cards and cash money Kshs.1,500/- all in a total value of Kshs.80,991/- the property of MBUGUA THUO.”
After a full trial, the Appellant was found “Guilty” of the main charge and he was convicted accordingly.
Consequently, the Appellant was sentenced to 3 years Imprisonment. During the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant urged the court to reduce the sentence and also put him on probation. The Appellant complained that the sentence of 3 years was excessive.
On the other hand, the State through Mr. Gumo, Assistant Deputy Public Prosecutor stated that the Appellant was found with stolen scratch cards apart from other stolen items. Mr. Gumo submitted that the above showed that the Appellant lived on the sweat of others.
Apart from the above, he also submitted that the sentence of 3 years was not harsh nor excessive, and hence he urged the court to confirm the same. This court has clearly perused the above, together with the record of appeal. From the evidence on record, it is explicit that the Appellant was arrested in possession of stolen goods on the following day after the commission of the offence. The said stolen items were later identified by the complainant.
No wonder, the Appellant never challenged the conviction. He only urged the court to reduce the sentence of 3 years. The maximum sentence for Super Market Breaking and Committing a felony is 7 years.
On the other hand, the Appellant has only served 1 year and 3 months out of his sentence. In exercise of my discretion, I hereby reduce the sentence to the period already served given the circumstances of the case. The Appellant should be released forthwith unless lawfully held.
MUGA APONDI
JUDGE
26TH JULY, 2005
Judgment read signed and delivered in open Court in the presence of the Appellant and Mr. Gumo for State.
MUGA APONDI
JUDGE
26TH JULY, 2005