[2022] KEHC 978 (KLR)
The High Court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and that the sentences imposed were within the law, considering the appellant's status as a first offender and his remorse. However, the trial court erred by not expressly crediting the appellant with the period spent in custody from 10th March...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 978 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kelvin Leparshau Jajiri; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E005 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal on sentence partially allowed; conviction and sentence upheld; period spent in custody to be deducted from sentence.
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Credit for Time Served, First Offender, Plea of Guilty
- 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
Kelvin Leparshau Jajiri
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred by not crediting the appellant with the period spent in custody before sentencing.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate given the appellant's status as a first offender and his plea of guilty.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and that the sentences imposed were within the law, considering the appellant's status as a first offender and his remorse. However, the trial court erred by not expressly crediting the appellant with the period spent in custody from 10th March 2019 to 15th February 2021. The appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence but ordered that the period spent in custody be deducted from each sentence, with both sentences to run concurrently.
Court Disposition
Appeal on sentence partially allowed; conviction and sentence upheld; period spent in custody to be deducted from sentence.
Orders
- Conviction and sentence upheld.
- Period spent in custody from 10th March 2019 to 15th February 2021 to be deducted from each sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MURANG’A
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. E005 OF 2021
KELVIN LEPARSHAU JAJIRI.......................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC......................................................................................................RESPONDENT
[Appeal from the original conviction in Criminal Case No. 313 of 2019 in the Senior
Principal Magistrates Court at Kigumo by K. Sambu, SPM, dated 16th February 2021]
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts: Conspiracy to effect unlawful purpose contrary to section 395 (f) of the Penal Code; and, stealing stock contrary to section 278 of the Code. He was imprisoned for twoand seven years respectively. The terms were to run concurrently.
2. On 5th May 2021, the appellant was granted leave to lodge the petition out of time. The appeal is only on sentence. At the hearing of the appeal on 16th March 2022, the appellant confirmed as much.
3. The appellant is a first offender and pleaded for leniency. He said he is remorseful for his actions. He stated that he was looking for a job when he was misled by accomplices to load four stolen cows onto a vehicle. He also faults the lower court for not crediting him with the period spent in custody. In a synopsis, the entire appeal is a plea for mercy.
4. The appeal is contested by the Republic. However, learned Prosecution Counsel, Ms. Muriu, conceded that the period spent in remand should have been deducted from the sentence.
5. This is a first appeal to the High Court. I have re-evaluated the record and drawn my own conclusions. Njoroge v Republic[1987] KLR 19, Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32, Kariuki Karanja v Republic[1986] KLR 190.
6. I am satisfied that the plea of guilt was unequivocal. I have also stated that the appellant does not challenge his conviction.
7. Section 354 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code empowers the court to alter the finding, maintain the sentence, or with or without altering the finding reduce or increase the sentence. The parameters were well set out in Macharia v Republic [2003] 2 E.A 559.
7. The learned trial Magistrate considered that the appellant was a first offender and was remorseful. I find that the two sentences were well within the law. The plea for clemency before this court must be looked at through those lenses. Although the trial court was alive that the appellant had been in remand for two years, it did not expressly credit him with that time.
8. I will thus uphold the conviction and sentence. However, the period spent in custody from 10th March 2019 to 15th February 2021 shall now be deducted from each of those sentences. For the avoidance of doubt, both sentences shall run concurrently.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2022.
KANYI KIMONDO
JUDGE
Judgment read in open court in the presence of-
Appellant.
Mr. Waweru for the Republic.
Ms. Susan Waiganjo, Court Assistant.