[2022] KEHC 10301 (KLR)
The High Court declined to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court because the applicant did not demonstrate that the sentence was illegal, improper, irregular, or incorrect. The trial court had considered the applicant's lack of remorse and previous convictions, and exercised its discretion...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 10301 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Lodinyo Kingetich alias Katit Ngolekeny; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 56 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for sentence review dismissed.
- Judges
- WM Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Revision Jurisdiction, Sentencing Discretion
- 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
Peter Lodinyo Kingetich alias Katit Ngolekeny
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should review and convert the applicant's custodial sentence to a fine.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was irregular, improper, illegal, or incorrect.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court declined to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court because the applicant did not demonstrate that the sentence was illegal, improper, irregular, or incorrect. The trial court had considered the applicant's lack of remorse and previous convictions, and exercised its discretion appropriately in declining to impose a non-custodial sentence. The application for review was therefore without merit, as the grounds for revision under the Criminal Procedure Code were not met.
Court Disposition
Application for sentence review dismissed.
Orders
- Application for review of sentence is dismissed.
- Copies of the ruling to be availed to the applicant and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Kingetich v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 56 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 10301 (KLR) (24 June 2022) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 10301 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 56 of 2019
WM Musyoka, J
June 24, 2022
Between
Peter Lodinyo Kingetich alias Katit Ngolekeny
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Judgment
1. Upon being convicted in Mumias SPMCCRC No. 1074 of 2016, and sentenced to serve three years in jail, the applicant brought the instant application, asking the High Court to review the sentence, so as to convert it to a fine.
2. The proper thing for the applicant to have done is to appeal against the sentence, for either being excessive or disproportionate to the crime. The only other option is for revision on grounds of irregularity or impropriety or illegality.
3. I note that in his application the applicant does not seek to establish that his sentence was harsh or excessive or disproportionate to the offence or was illegal or improper or irregular or incorrect. Sentencing is at the discretion of the trial court, after considering the mitigating and extenuating circumstances. The prosecution placed a record before the court, indicating that he had previous convictions. The pre-sentence report indicated that he was not remorseful. In the face of those facts the trial court cannot be faulted for not considering a non-custodial sentence. I will not interfere with the sentence, in the circumstances.
4. Copies of the ruling to be availed to the applicant and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA ON THIS 24THDAY OF JUNE 2022WM MUSYOKAJUDGEErick Zalo, Court Assistant.Peter Lodinyo Kingetich, the applicant, in person.Mr. Mwangi, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the respondent.