[2024] KEHC 291 (KLR)
The appellate court found that the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discretion, taking into account the appellant's guilty plea, the recovery of the stolen goats, and the fact that the appellant was a repeat offender who committed the offence while on probation. The court held that these aggravating...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 291 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Leonard Mulinge Kinyili; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Makueni
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E087 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; sentence of trial court upheld
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Stealing Stock, Sentencing Principles, Repeat Offender, Mitigation, Probation Violation
- 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
Leonard Mulinge Kinyili
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court for stealing stock was lawful and appropriate.
- 2 Whether the appellant's guilty plea and recovery of stolen property warranted a reduction in sentence.
- 3 Whether the appellant's status as a repeat offender and violation of probation affected the appropriateness of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court found that the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discretion, taking into account the appellant's guilty plea, the recovery of the stolen goats, and the fact that the appellant was a repeat offender who committed the offence while on probation. The court held that these aggravating factors justified the sentence imposed, and there was no basis to interfere with the trial court's decision. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed and the sentence upheld.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; sentence of trial court upheld
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
- The sentence of five years imprisonment imposed by the trial court is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Kinyili v Republic (Criminal Appeal E087 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 291 (KLR) (12 January 2024) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 291 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Makueni
Criminal Appeal E087 of 2022
GMA Dulu, J
January 12, 2024
Between
Leonard Mulinge Kinyili
Appellant
and
Republic
Respondent
(From the conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 970 of 2021 at Kilungu Law Courts delivered on 14th December 2021 by Hon. C. A. Mayamba (PM)
Judgment
1. The appellant having been charged with stealing stock contrary to Section 278 of the Penal Code, and in the alternative to handling stolen goods contrary to Section 322(1)(2) of the Penal Code, was recorded as having pleaded guilty to the main count of stealing stock, the particulars of which being that on the night of 12th and 13th December 2021 at Wathini village in Makueni County stole two goats valued at Kshs. 13,000/= the property of Charles Katua Masia.
2. He was thus convicted and sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment.
3. He has now come to this court on appeal against sentence. The appeal was canvassed through written submissions. In this regard, I have perused and considered submissions filed by the appellant as well as the submissions filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposes the appeal and emphasizes that the minimum statutory sentence for the offence is 14 years imprisonment.
4. I have considered the grounds of appeal and submissions on both sides. I have also perused the record of appeal.
5. The Director of Public Prosecutions is correct on the maximum statutory sentence for the offence. I note also that when the appellant was given an opportunity by the trial court to mitigate he said ‘sina la kusema’ – ‘I have nothing to say’ in his mitigation. It means he chose not to mitigate.
6. I have still considered that from the facts given by the prosecutor before the trial court, the two goats were recovered, and the accused person actually pleaded guilty and did not waste the court’s time. However the appellant was a repeat offender in Criminal Case No. E298 of 2021 in which he had been put on probation for six (6) months. His activity of stealing the two goats was thus a violation of the probation orders.
7. I thus find that with the facts and circumstances placed before the trial court during sentencing, the trial court was correct in exercising its discretion in determining the appropriate sentence herein.
8. I consequently dismiss the appeal and uphold the sentence of the trial court.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 AT VOI VIRTUALLY.GEORGE DULUJUDGEIn the presence of:-Ms. Nusura – Court AssistantAppellantMs. Omolo for DPP