[2023] KEHC 24932 (KLR)
The court found that although the offence carried a maximum sentence of fourteen years, the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment without adequate consideration of his plea of guilty and the mitigation offered. The trial court failed to give due weight to these factors, rendering the sentence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 24932 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dennis Kipchumba Kiptum; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E014 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- sentence revised; custodial sentence set aside and substituted with probation and compensation order
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Revisionary Jurisdiction, Plea of Guilty, Mitigation, Proportionality 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
Dennis Kipchumba Kiptum
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was harsh and excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial court failed to consider the applicant's plea of guilty and mitigation in sentencing.
- 3 Whether the High Court should exercise its revisionary jurisdiction to interfere with the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the offence carried a maximum sentence of fourteen years, the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment without adequate consideration of his plea of guilty and the mitigation offered. The trial court failed to give due weight to these factors, rendering the sentence manifestly harsh. The High Court, exercising its revisionary jurisdiction, set aside the custodial sentence and substituted it with a non-custodial sentence of probation for three years, coupled with an order for compensation to the complainant for the value of the stolen mobile phone.
Court Disposition
sentence revised; custodial sentence set aside and substituted with probation and compensation order
Orders
- The sentence of three years imprisonment is set aside.
- The applicant is placed on probation for three years.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Kiptum v Republic (Criminal Revision E014 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 24932 (KLR) (8 November 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 24932 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision E014 of 2023
DR Kavedza, J
November 8, 2023
Between
Dennis Kipchumba Kiptum
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged and convicted on a plea of guilty for the offence of stealing from the person contrary to section 279(a) of the Penal Codein Kibera CM Criminal Case No. E1748 of 2022. He was subsequently sentenced to serve three (3) years imprisonment.
2. The applicant has now filed an undated Chamber Summons application lodged in court on June 16, 2023 seeking a revision of his sentence.
3. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant, Dennis Kipchumba Kiptum. He avers that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive, and he therefore seeks a reduction of the same. The application is not opposed by the State.
4. The instant application invokes the revisionary jurisdiction of this court which is donated by section 362 of theCriminal Procedure Code which reads as follows:“…The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court.
5. The offence that the applicant was facing carried a maximum sentence of fourteen (14) years imprisonment. The applicant was sentenced to three (3) years imprisonment. He however pleaded guilty at the first instance and saved the court’s precious time of holding a full trial, and ought to have been considered favourably. The trial court did not seem to have done this. In that regard, I find that the sentence was manifestly harsh.
6. The upshot is that the sentence of three (3) years imprisonment is set aside and is substituted with a Probation Order for three (3) years. Furthermore, the applicant shall make payments in instalments of twelve (12) months to compensate the complainant for the loss of his mobile phone valued at Kshs.67,999/= until payment in full.
7. It is so ordered.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023. _________D.KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Akunja for the State.Applicant present (VTC).Joy C/A.