[2005] KEHC 52 (KLR)
The High Court found that the sentence of three years imprisonment imposed on the appellant for stealing was within the statutory maximum and not harsh or illegal. The trial court had properly considered the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's mitigation. The appellant was fortunate not to have been...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 52 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kelvin Mwangi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 59 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Stealing Offences, 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 Mwangi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of three years imprisonment for stealing was harsh or illegal.
- 2 Whether there are compelling grounds to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the sentence of three years imprisonment imposed on the appellant for stealing was within the statutory maximum and not harsh or illegal. The trial court had properly considered the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's mitigation. The appellant was fortunate not to have been charged under a more serious provision (Section 279 of the Penal Code), which carries a heavier penalty. There were no compelling grounds presented to warrant interference with the sentence. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MALINDI
CRIMINAL APPEAL 59 OF 2004
KELVIN MWANGI……………………………………..APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………...…………..RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant who pleaded guilty before the trial Court and was sentenced to 3 years for stealing now appeals against the sentence arguing that the same was harsh.
The offence with which the appellant was charged carries a three year imprisonment if found guilty. The trial Court considered the circumstances of the case and the appellants’ mitigation before passing sentence. The circumstances, according to the trial Court justified a stiff sentence. The appellant broke into a locked motor vehicle and stolen there from a bag. The trial Court, correctly observed, that the appellant was lucky to have escaped a charge under Section 279 P.C. which carries a sentence of 14 years imprisonment.
I find the sentence neither illegal or harsh. There are no compelling grounds for me to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial Court.
Appeal dismissed.
Dated and delivered at Malindi this 6th day of September, 2005.
W.OUKO
JUDGE
6. 9.2005
Judgment delivered.
Present Mr.Odhiambo for respondent Mr.Ogoti for state
Appellant in person
CC: Gladys.
W.OUKO
JUDGE