[2012] KEHC 4915 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal because the record showed that the appellant indicated he understood Kiswahili but preferred Kalenjin, and an interpreter was provided. The charges and facts were read and explained to him in Kalenjin, and he admitted them. The appellant also...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 4915 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Leonard Kitur; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 260 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- SP Ouko
- Legal Topics
- Plea of Guilty, Defilement, Sentence Legality, Language of Plea, Sexual Offences
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Leonard Kitur
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plea of guilty entered by the appellant was unequivocal.
- 2 Whether the appellant understood the language used during the plea proceedings.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal because the record showed that the appellant indicated he understood Kiswahili but preferred Kalenjin, and an interpreter was provided. The charges and facts were read and explained to him in Kalenjin, and he admitted them. The appellant also mitigated before sentencing, expressing regret and attributing his conduct to peer pressure. The court held that the appellant could not later deny the offence after admitting it and that the sentence imposed was both lawful and lenient given the circumstances, particularly the age of the victim. Accordingly, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction and sentence of twenty years imprisonment are upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.260 OF 2007
LEONARD KITUR…………………………………...................................…...……………...APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………………….......................................……………….RESPONDENT
[An Appeal from original conviction and sentence in Nakuru C.M.A.CR.C.NO.251 of 2007 (K) by Hon M. W. Onditi, Snr. Resident Magistrate dated 19th November, 2007]
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to serve twenty (20) years imprisonment for the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act.
He has challenged the conviction and sentence. Although by dint of Section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code no appeal is allowed in the case of a conviction on a plea of guilty, except to the extent of legality of the sentence, it is not settled that that section is a complete bar to appeals from persons convicted on their own admission. See Abanus Mwasia Mutua V. Republic, Criminal Appeal No.120 of 2004.
Apart from challenging the sentence, the appellant has also raised the following two grounds:
i)that he did not understand the language used during the plea;
ii)that he did not commit the offence.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal. He submitted that the appellant admitted both the charge and the facts after the same were translated to him in Kalenjin language; that in view of the age of the child victim (3½ years), twenty (20) years imprisonment was lenient.
I have considered the grounds of appeal and the foregoing submissions. I have no doubt in my mind that the plea of guilty was unequivocal for these reasons. When the appellant appeared in court on 19th November, 2007, he himself told the court that he understood Kiswahili language but was better off in Kalenjin language. An interpreter, Carolyne Bartilol was availed. The charges were read to the appellant who admitted them and also confirmed the facts to be true. The appellant mitigated before sentence expressing his regret and undertaking not to be involved in criminal acts.
I find no merit in this ground of appeal. Similarly, he cannot now turn around to deny the offence after admitting it. Indeed in his written submissions to this court he had attributed his conduct in committing the crime to peer pressure.
The sentence was both lawful and lenient. The appeal is dismissed.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nakuru this 23rd day of February, 2012.
W. OUKO
JUDGE