[1987] KEHC 22 (KLR)
The court found that although the conviction for assault under section 251 of the Penal Code was not challenged, the sentence imposed was severe. Upon consideration of the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel, the judge exercised discretion to set aside the original sentence and substitute it with a term...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1987] KEHC 22 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kimonyi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 49 of 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- sentence reduced
- Judges
- ENA Torgbor
- Legal Topics
- Assault, Sentencing, Misdemeanour Offences
- 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
Kimonyi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed for assault under section 251 of the Penal Code was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the conviction for assault under section 251 of the Penal Code was not challenged, the sentence imposed was severe. Upon consideration of the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel, the judge exercised discretion to set aside the original sentence and substitute it with a term of 14 months imprisonment from the date of judgment, finding this to be a more appropriate punishment for the offence committed.
Court Disposition
sentence reduced
Orders
- The original sentence is set aside and substituted with 14 months imprisonment from the date of judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 49 OF 1987
KIMONYI………,……………….………APPELLANT
V
REPUBLIC…………………………………..RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted on a charge of assault under section 251 of the Penal Code. The offence is a misdemeanour. Appellant counsel does not challenge the conviction but seeks a reduction of sentence.
Having considered his arguments I am of the view that the sentence is severe and it is set aside and substituted by 14 months imprisonment from the date of judgment.
Order accordingly.
July 3, 1987
TORGBOR
JUDGE