[2016] KEHC 7841 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had been convicted by separate courts on separate charges, with no nexus between the offences. Section 37 of the Penal Code mandates that sentences for offences arising from separate transactions and imposed by different courts must be served consecutively unless the court directs...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 7841 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Laban Nyoike Mwangi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 280 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Consolidate Sentences
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Consolidation of Sentences, False Pretences, Stealing, Penal Code Interpretation
- 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
Laban Nyoike Mwangi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Consolidate Sentences
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can consolidate sentences imposed by different courts for offences arising from separate transactions.
- 2 Whether Section 37 of the Penal Code permits concurrent service of sentences in these circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had been convicted by separate courts on separate charges, with no nexus between the offences. Section 37 of the Penal Code mandates that sentences for offences arising from separate transactions and imposed by different courts must be served consecutively unless the court directs otherwise. In this case, there was no legal basis to consolidate the sentences, and the court lacked authority to interfere with the sentences or their execution as imposed by the trial courts. The application to consolidate the sentences was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to consolidate the sentences is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.280 OF 2015
LABAN NYOIKE MWANGI............................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, Laban Nyoike Mwangi was tried before three different courts for allegedly committing three (3) different offences. He was charged with obtaining goods by false pretencescontrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code at Kibera Chief Magistrate’s Court (Criminal Case No.614 of 2014). He was convicted and sentenced to serve two (2) years imprisonment on 19th February 2014. He was charged with the offence of stealing contrary to Section 275 of the Penal Code at Makadara Chief Magistrate’s Court (Criminal Case No.1052 of 2014). He was convicted and sentenced to serve three (3) years imprisonment on 3rd April 2014. He was further charged with the offence of stealing contrary to Section 275 of the Penal Code before the Kikuyu Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court (Criminal Case No.134 of 2014). He was sentenced to serve eighteen (18) months imprisonment on 12th June 2014. The Applicant has applied to this court to have the three separate sentences consolidated. He told the court that he had learned from his mistakes and would not commit any other offence if the sentences imposed upon him were consolidated.
Ms. Atina for the State opposed the application. She submitted that the sentences the Applicant was serving were three (3) separate and different sentences meted out by three different courts. The three offences for which the Applicant was convicted arose out of three separate criminal transactions and therefore the sentences must be served separately.
This court has carefully considered the circumstances of this case. Section 37 of the Penal Code provides thus:
“Where a person after conviction for an offence is convicted of another offence, either before sentence is passed upon him under the first conviction or before the expiration of that sentence, any sentence, other than a sentence of death, which is passed upon him under the subsequent conviction shall be executed after the expiration of the former sentence, unless the court directs that it shall be executed concurrently with the former sentence or any part thereof.
Provided that it shall not be lawful for a court to direct that a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine shall be executed concurrently with a former sentence under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 28 or of any part thereof.”
The present application falls in all fours within the application of this section of the Penal Code. The Applicant was convicted by separate courts on separate charges. There is no nexus between any of the charges that he was convicted of. The law requires that he serves the sentences one after the other. This court cannot interfere with the sentences imposed by the trial court and the manner of their execution.
The application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF MAY 2016
L. KIMARU
JUDGE