[2017] KEHC 3208 (KLR)
The court held that the trial magistrate's order for sentences in default of fine to run concurrently was not specific and, in law, such sentences cannot be ordered to run concurrently. However, since the applicant had already served close to one year in custody and the offences arose from the same transaction, no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 3208 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Leonard Kiburu Kimunya; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Revision Case 3 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DB Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Sentences, Default of Fine, Revision Jurisdiction
- 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
Leonard Kiburu Kimunya
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in ordering sentences of imprisonment in default of fine to run concurrently.
- 2 Whether the High Court should revise the sentence order to specify consecutive or concurrent terms.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the trial magistrate's order for sentences in default of fine to run concurrently was not specific and, in law, such sentences cannot be ordered to run concurrently. However, since the applicant had already served close to one year in custody and the offences arose from the same transaction, no injustice had been occasioned by the order. The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order or substitute it with consecutive sentences, finding the period served sufficient and dismissing the request for amendment.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The request to amend the order to read concurrent is hereby dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAJIADO
APPELLATE SIDE
HIGH COURT REVISION NO. 3 OF 2017
(From conviction and sentence in Criminal
Case No. 158 of 2016 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Ngong)
LEONARD KIBURU KIMUNYA.................................APPLICANT
- VERSUS -
REPUBLIC.............................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
I am in receipt of a letter dated 10/8/2017 regarding CR Case No. 158 of 2016 between Republic v Leonard Kiburu Kimunya. The complaint by the officer is in respect charge in request to the order on sentence by the trial magistrate.
The background of the matter is that the applicant was indicted with three counts contrary to section 387(a) of the penal code. The applicant admitted the charges. He was convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to a fine of Ksh. 70,000/= on each count in default 1 year imprisonment. A further order by the trial magistrate was that the sentences to run concurrently.
I have perused the record and the application for revision and filed through the officer in charge. The law on concurrent sentences is exclusively for offences under the same transaction. However, in this case the learned trial magistrate ordered fines and in default a term of imprisonment to run concurrently.
The principle of law is that a sentence of imprisonment in default of a fine cannot be made to run concurrently with any other sentence. The trial magistrate order is therefore not specific by the word sentence to run concurrently. The record further reveals that the applicant did not pay the fine imposed totaling to Ksh. 210,000/=. He has served a term of imprisonment close to one year since 21/10/2016.
In the present application and being guided by section 37 of the Penal Code and section 380 and 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code, I am of the view that the order has not occasioned an injustice. I would not therefore interfere with the order by substituting it with consecutive orders. The period the applicant has been in custody is sufficient enough since the offences arose from the same transaction.
The request to amend the order to read concurrent is hereby dismissed.
Dated, delivered and signed in open court at Kajiado on 4/8/1017
..........................
R. NYAKUNDI
JUDGE