[2024] KEHC 1753 (KLR)
The High Court found that while the offence of grievous harm is serious and warrants a deterrent sentence, the trial magistrate failed to sufficiently consider the appellant's status as a first offender and the specific circumstances of the case, including the intoxication of both parties. The court reaffirmed that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 1753 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Lengeso Leamus; Respondent: Director Of Public Prosecution
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E107 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Grievous Harm, Exercise of Discretion, First Offender, Deterrent 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
Lengeso Leamus
Appellant
Director Of Public Prosecution
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 20-year sentence imposed for grievous harm was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial court failed to consider relevant factors such as the appellant being a first offender and the circumstances of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that while the offence of grievous harm is serious and warrants a deterrent sentence, the trial magistrate failed to sufficiently consider the appellant's status as a first offender and the specific circumstances of the case, including the intoxication of both parties. The court reaffirmed that appellate interference with sentencing discretion is only justified where the sentence is manifestly excessive or based on wrong principles. In this case, the 20-year sentence was deemed excessive given the mitigating factors. The sentence was therefore substituted with a 5-year imprisonment term, effective from the date of arrest.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced
Orders
- The 20-year imprisonment term imposed on the appellant is substituted with a 5-year imprisonment term from 21st January, 2023.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Leamus v Director of Public Prosecution (Criminal Appeal E107 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 1753 (KLR) (22 February 2024) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 1753 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Appeal E107 of 2023
TW Cherere, J
February 22, 2024
Between
Lengeso Leamus
Appellant
and
Director Of Public Prosecution
Respondent
((Being an appeal against sentence in Isiolo Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal No. 011 of 2023 by Hon. Lucy.K.Mutai CM) on 20th July, 2023)
Judgment
1. Appellant was on 20th July, 2023 sentenced to serve 20 years’ imprisonment for the offence of grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code.
2. Appellant is aggrieved by the sentence which he says is not proportionate to the offence as he was a first offender and him and complainant were drunk when the offence was committed.
3. The Respondent through Ms. Rita submitted that the prosecution case was proved but made no response concerning Appellant’s appeal on sentence.
4. I have considered the appeal and taken cognizance of the fact that this court will only interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial magistrate’s court when sentencing the Appellant in limited cases. In Bernard Kimani Gacheru v Republic [2002] eKLR, the Court of Appeal stated thus:“It is now settled law, following several authorities by this Court and by the High Court, that sentence is a matter that rests in the discretion of the trial court. Similarly, sentence must depend on the facts of each case. On appeal, the appellate court will not easily interfere with the sentence unless, that sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case, or that the trial court overlooked some material factor, or took into account, some wrong material, or acted on a wrong principle. Even if, the Appellate Court feels that the sentence is heavy and that the Appellate Court might itself not have passed that sentence, these alone are not sufficient grounds for interfering with the discretion of the trial court on sentence unless, anyone of the matters already stated is shown to exist. (See alsoWanjema v Republic [1971] E.A.493. ”
5. Similarly, the Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & another v Republic [2018] eKLR held at Page 25 of its judgment as follows:“As what is challenged in this appeal regarding sentence is essentially the exercise of discretion, as a principle this Court will normally not interfere with exercise of discretion by the court appealed from unless it is demonstrated that the court acted on wrong principle, ignored material factors; took into account irrelevant considerations; or on the whole that the sentence is manifestly excessive.
6. Section 234 of the Penal Code under which Appellant was charged and convicted provides that: Any person who unlawfully does grievous harm to another is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life.
7. Appellant stabbed the complainant on the left lumbar region causing an injury to the colon which had to be repaired surgically. Complainant was treated as an inpatient for 4 days.
8. In sentencing the Appellant, the learned trial magistrate rightly considered that Appellant had caused complainant a life-threatening injury and concluded that the offence called for a deterrent sentence.
9. The Criminal Procedure Bench Book at page 116 provides that:“The sentences imposed should be geared towards achieving the following objectives set out in the sentencing policy guidelines (paragraph 4. 1):i.Retribution.ii.Deterrence.iii.Rehabilitation.iv.Restorative justice.v.Incapacitating the offender.vi.Denouncing the offence, on behalf of the community”.
10. I totally agree with the sentiments of the trial magistrate concerning the Appellant but since he is a first offender, I find that he ought to benefit from a less severe sentence.
11. Consequently, the 20-year imprisonment term imposed on Appellant is substituted with 5 years’ imprisonment term from 21st January, 2023 when he was arrested.
DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistants - Kinoti/MuneneAppellant - In personFor DPP - Ms. Rita Rotich (PC-1)