[2011] KECA 375 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal found that the sentence of ten years imprisonment for manslaughter was neither harsh nor manifestly excessive, given the circumstances under which the appellant unlawfully caused the death of the deceased, including the nature of the injuries inflicted and the fact that the offence carried a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KECA 375 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kiplangat Ronoh; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 225 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Sentencing Principles, Appeal Against Sentence, Mitigating Factors
- 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
Kiplangat Ronoh
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of ten years imprisonment for manslaughter was harsh or manifestly excessive.
- 2 Whether the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's personal circumstances warranted a reduction of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal found that the sentence of ten years imprisonment for manslaughter was neither harsh nor manifestly excessive, given the circumstances under which the appellant unlawfully caused the death of the deceased, including the nature of the injuries inflicted and the fact that the offence carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The court agreed with the respondent's submissions and held that there was no basis for interfering with the sentence imposed by the High Court. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed in its entirety.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed in its entirety.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAKURU
CORAM: TUNOI, GITHINJI & NYAMU, JJ.A.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2008
BETWEEN
KIPLANGAT RONOH ………………………..……..……………….….…… APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC ……………………………………...…………………………. RESPONDENT
(An appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Koome, J) dated 14th November, 2008
in
HCCR.C NO. 42 OF 2005) ***************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appellant was charged before the superior court with murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charged alleged that on the night of 22nd and 23rd April, 2005, the appellant murdered Erick Katasi Yatich.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge but after trial the superior court (Koome J) convicted the appellant of the lesser offence of manslaughter and on 14th November, 2008 sentenced the appellant to ten (10) years imprisonment. This was apparently under Section 202 (1) as read with Section 205 of the Penal Code although the learned Judge did not say so.
The appeal is against sentence only. There are five grounds of appeal. In the first ground of appeal, the appellant states:
“That … I pleaded guilty to the charge and I firmly maintain the same.”
So the appellant admits that he unlawfully caused the death of the deceased. In the second, third, fourth and fifth grounds of appeal, the appellant states that the sentence of 10 years imprisonment is manifestly harsh and oppressive; that the sentence will reduce his life considering that the living conditions in prison are inhuman; that sentence should be reduced to the extent that will enable him to go home, and, that as he is the only bread winner, his family is undergoing numerous problems.
We have considered the circumstances under which the appellant unlawfully caused the death of the deceased including, among other things, that the appellant and deceased were casual workers; that they were friends; that they were living in the same house; that the deceased and the appellantquarrelled over maize meal which quarrel degenerated into a fight; that the deceased sustained several injuries, including a severe head injury; that the deceased also inflicted injuries on the appellant. It is clear, however, that the appellant inflicted several injuries on the deceased the fatal one being a severe cut wound on the scalp.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case and to the fact that the offence carried a life imprisonment we, with respect, agree with submissions of Mr Omutelema, learned Senior Principal State Counsel, that the sentence was neither harsh nor manifestly excessive. Accordingly the appeal has no merit and it is dismissed in its entirety.
Dated and delivered at Nakuru this 21st day of February, 2011.
P. K. TUNOI
--------------------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
E M. GITHINJI
--------------------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
J. G. NYAMU
-------------------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR