[2024] KEHC 4278 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants were not entitled to a review of their custodial sentences to non-custodial sentences. The probation officer's reports did not support the suitability of either applicant for non-custodial sentencing. The 1st applicant was a repeat offender, and his family and community were not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 4278 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Isaac Museve Karori; Applicant: Patrick Zinga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E091 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- application dismissed; custodial sentences upheld
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Burglary, Sentencing Review, Plea of Guilty, Non Custodial Sentence, Probation Reports
- 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
Isaac Museve Karori
Applicant
Patrick Zinga
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a review of their custodial sentences to non-custodial sentences.
- 2 Whether the probation officer's reports support the grant of non-custodial sentences to the applicants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants were not entitled to a review of their custodial sentences to non-custodial sentences. The probation officer's reports did not support the suitability of either applicant for non-custodial sentencing. The 1st applicant was a repeat offender, and his family and community were not supportive of his rehabilitation outside prison. The 2nd applicant's family was supportive but had concerns about his associates, and the probation officer still recommended against a non-custodial sentence. Furthermore, the applicants declined to be interviewed for a further inquiry report, which could have provided additional information on their suitability. Consequently, the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed; custodial sentences upheld
Orders
- The application for sentence review is dismissed.
- Applicants shall serve the full custodial sentences as ordered by the trial magistrate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Karori & another v Republic (Criminal Revision E091 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 4278 (KLR) (11 April 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 4278 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Criminal Revision E091 of 2024
RN Nyakundi, J
April 11, 2024
Between
Isaac Museve Karori
1st Applicant
Patrick Zinga
2nd Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
Representation:Mark Mugun for the state 1. The applicants were was charged with the offence of burglary contrary to section 304(2) and stealing contrary to section 279(b) of the penal code. The particulars of the offence were that on the night of 9th November, 2023 at Kambi Mwangi area in Turbo Sub-County within Uasin Gishu County, the applicants jointly with others not before court, broke and entered the dwelling house of Timothy Kiplagat with the intent to steal and did steal two cooking gas cylinders, 6kgs and 13kgs, two mattresses, two suit cases assorted clothes, one woofer Sony, utensils, a blender, two plastic chairs and window curtains valued at 60,000/=, the property of Timothy Kiplagat.
2. The applicants pleaded guilty to the offence before Hon. P. Areri on 17th November, 2023 and as a consequence, they were convicted on their own plea of guilty and sentenced to serve three years imprisonment on each limb and the sentence could run concurrently.
3. The applicants have approached this court pursuant to sections 357,362,364& 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code as construed with Article 50(2) (p) & (q) as conjunctively read with Article 50(6)(a)&(b) of the Constitution.
4. The applicants seek a sentence review. That they may serve a non-custodial sentence. The probation officer filed a report dated 27th November, 2023. The said report is non-responsive. The probation officer stated that the 1st applicant’s family regarded him negatively while noting that he is a repeat offender. They want him imprisoned to assist him change his behavior.
5. The probation officer recommended that from its findings, the 1st applicant is not fit to serve a non-custodial sentence. That the community is not favorable to his rehabilitation.
6. As for the 2nd applicant, he is 36 years old and married. He is engaged in casual labor to earn a living. According to the probation officer report, his family regarded him positively but is concerned with his anti-social peers. They asked for leniency from the court. The Probation officer on his part recommended that the 2nd applicant is not fit for non-custodial sentence.
7. Interestingly, the applicants declined to be interviewed to give way for an inquiry report which could have established whether they are suitable to serve a non-custodial sentence. The application therefore lacks merit and it is dismissed pursuant to section 382 of the CPC. For avoidance of doubt, the applicants by dint of the trial magistrate’s order shall serve the full custodial sentence.
SIGNED, DATE AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 11THDAY OF APRIL 2024. ..................R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE