[2019] KEHC 10552 (KLR)
The court found that the evidence against the appellant, particularly the recovery of the stolen cow on his land shortly after the theft and the inadequacy of his explanation, justified the conviction under the doctrine of recent possession. The appellant's claim of being framed was unsupported by evidence. However,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 10552 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kipchumba Lagat alias Patrick; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kabarnet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 111 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal against conviction dismissed; sentence set aside and matter remitted for pre-sentence report before resentencing.
- Judges
- EM Muriithi
- Legal Topics
- Stock Theft, Doctrine of Recent Possession, Sentencing Principles, Review of Sentence
- 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
Kipchumba Lagat alias Patrick
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for stock theft was supported by the evidence presented at trial.
- 2 Whether the sentence of 4 years imprisonment was excessive in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the evidence against the appellant, particularly the recovery of the stolen cow on his land shortly after the theft and the inadequacy of his explanation, justified the conviction under the doctrine of recent possession. The appellant's claim of being framed was unsupported by evidence. However, the court held that the sentence of 4 years imprisonment was excessive for the theft of one cow valued at Ksh. 65,000, and that a term not exceeding 3 years would be appropriate. The court ordered a pre-sentence report to consider the suitability of a community service order before final sentencing.
Court Disposition
Appeal against conviction dismissed; sentence set aside and matter remitted for pre-sentence report before resentencing.
Orders
- The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
- The sentence of 4 years imprisonment is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KABARNET
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 111 OF 2017
[FORMERLY NAKURU HCCRA NO. 117 OF 2016]
KIPCHUMBA LAGAT ALIAS PATRICK.........APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..........................................................RESPONDENT
[An appeal from the original conviction and sentence of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at
Eldama Ravine Cr. Case no 33 of 2016 delivered on the 13th day of July, 2016 by Hon. M. Kasera, PM]
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant was convicted for stock theft contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on 13/7/16. He was released on bail pending appeal on 23/11/2016.
2. I have considered the evidence presented before the trial Court and I find it when weighed against the accused’s unsworn statement to overwhelming support a finding of guilt on the principle of the doctrine of recent possession. The appellant was found in his possession at his land with a cow which was stolen from the Kenya Agricultural Training Centre (F.T.C), Koibatek only 2 days earlier and this allegation of having reported the finding of the cow on his land was shown to have been done to Assistant Chief Pw3 only after the presence of the cow on his shamba had been discovered by Pw2, the herdsman who identified the cow and the area chief Pw4 to whom he said had been reported by the Assistant Chief Pw3. The subsequent reporting of the alleged finding of the cow on his shamba, was the appellant’s attempt to get out of the theft case following the discovery of the cow on his land. The appellant’s plea that he had been framed was not supported by any evidence of a grudge and therefore did not raise any doubt to the prosecution’s evidence.
3. Consistent with the principles of review of sentences in Wanjema v. R (1971) EA 493, I find that the offence of theft of one cow shown in the particulars of the offence to have been valued at Ksh. 65,000/= was in this case punished by an excessive sentence of 4 years imprisonment. An imprisonment term not exceeding 3 years should have been sufficient.
Orders
4. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, in exercise of the powers of the appellate Court under section 354 (3) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code while dismissing the appeal from conviction for the offence of stock theft contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code, considers the appropriate sentence therefor to be imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years.
5. However, in view of section 3 of the Community Service Order Act, the Court directs the Probation Officer to prepare a pre-sentence report for consideration by the Court before sentencing on 4/2/19.
Order accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019
EDWARD M. MURIITHI
JUDGE
Appearances:
Appellant in person.
Ms. Macharia, Ass. DPP for the Respondent