[2018] KEHC 7245 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence of 3 years imprisonment for stealing one ram valued at KES 4,500 was excessive given the appellant's status as a first offender and the period already served in custody. Applying the principle of proportionality and considering remission under the Prisons Act, the court held that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 7245 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Komen Loruko alias Musa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kabarnet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 202 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- sentence reduced to time served; appellant to be released immediately unless otherwise lawfully held
- Judges
- EM Muriithi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Stock Theft, First Offender Consideration, Remission 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
Komen Loruko alias Musa
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 3 years imprisonment for stealing stock was excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the period already served by the appellant constituted sufficient punishment for the offence committed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence of 3 years imprisonment for stealing one ram valued at KES 4,500 was excessive given the appellant's status as a first offender and the period already served in custody. Applying the principle of proportionality and considering remission under the Prisons Act, the court held that the time already served (1 year, 4 months, and 5 days) was sufficient punishment. The court exercised its appellate powers to set aside the original sentence and substitute it with a sentence of imprisonment for the period already served, thereby ordering the appellant's immediate release unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
sentence reduced to time served; appellant to be released immediately unless otherwise lawfully held
Orders
- The imprisonment term of 3 years imposed by the trial court is set aside.
- The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the time already served.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KABARNET
HCCRA NO. 202 OF 2017
KOMEN LORUKO ALIAS MUSA...............APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...................................................RESPONDENT
[Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence in Kabarnet Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 1008/2016 made on 15th December, 2016 by Hon. E. M. Ayuka, RM]
JUDGMENT
1. In his written submissions dated 15/3/18, the appellant only seeks reduction of his sentence of imprisonment for 3 years for the offence of stealing stock contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code imposed on 15/12/16. He seeks leniency on the ground that he was a first offender and that his act emanated from alcohol.
2. The DPP’s Ms. Macharia did not oppose the appeal pointing out that:
“The appellant pleaded guilty and therefore the appeal is on sentence. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years for stealing stock contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code [and that] being in custody for 1 year 4 months. He had stolen 1 sheep and I believe that the time he has served is adequate punishment, and the sentence may be reduced to the time served.”
3. With remission, the appellant would have been released on 15/12/18 after serving full sentence. I would agree that having regard to the value of the item stolen given as one ram valued at 4,500/=, a sentence of two years would have been sufficient punishment. With remission of 1/3 the term under section 46 of the Prisons Act, the appellant would serve 16 months, which is less than the period he has been in custody today, standing at 1 year, 4 months and 5 days.
4. I would agree with the DPP that the appellant has been sufficiently punished for this offence.
Orders
5. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the court sets aside the imprisonment term for 3 years imposed by the trial court and, pursuant to section 354 (3) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, reduces the sentence of imprisonment to the time already served so as to enable the appellant to be released from custody immediately, unless he is otherwise lawfully held.
DATED AND DELIVERED ON THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018.
EDWARD M. MURIITHI
JUDGE
Appearances:
Appellant in person.
Ms. Macharia, Ass. DPP for Respondent.