[2023] KEHC 17244 (KLR)
The High Court found that the sentencing court had properly exercised its discretion in imposing a 20-year custodial sentence for robbery with violence, having considered the appellant's mitigation, the seriousness of the injuries inflicted on the victim, and the recommendations of the Sentence Review Report. There...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 17244 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Jackson Erupe Lomo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E003 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- AC Mrima
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Sentencing Guidelines, Appeal on Sentence, Judicial Discretion in Sentencing
- 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
Jackson Erupe Lomo
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 20 years imprisonment imposed on the appellant for robbery with violence was harsh and excessive.
- 2 Whether the trial court exercised its sentencing discretion judicially and in accordance with the law.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the sentencing court had properly exercised its discretion in imposing a 20-year custodial sentence for robbery with violence, having considered the appellant's mitigation, the seriousness of the injuries inflicted on the victim, and the recommendations of the Sentence Review Report. There was no evidence that the trial court considered irrelevant factors or failed to consider relevant ones. The sentence was not deemed harsh or excessive in the circumstances, and the appellate court declined to interfere with it.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against the sentence is dismissed.
- The sentence to run from 25th January, 2019 when the appellant was charged.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Lomo v Republic (Criminal Appeal E003 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 17244 (KLR) (11 May 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 17244 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kitale
Criminal Appeal E003 of 2023
AC Mrima, J
May 11, 2023
Between
Jackson Erupe Lomo
Appellant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being an appeal on sentence by Hon. J. K. Ng’arng’ar Chief Magistrate in Kitale Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 355 of 2019 delivered on 5th January, 2023)
Judgment
1. The Appellant herein, Jackson Erupe Lomo, was charged with the offence of Robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code. He denied the offence and a trial was held where he was found guilty as charged, convicted and sentenced to death.
2. The Appellant filed an appeal being High Court at Kitale Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2019. This Court allowed the appeal on sentence and ordered that the Appellant be re-sentenced by the trial Court.
3. On 5th January, 2023, the Appellant was re-sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. The Court considered the contents of a Sentence Review Report which recommended a custodial sentence due to a hostile environment at home.
4. The Appellant lodged the instant appeal against the re-sentencing.
5. In his submissions, the Appellant claimed that the sentence was very harsh. He prayed for a lesser sentence.
6. The State left the matter to the Court.
7. This Court is the first appellate Court.
8. The Court in Wanjema v Republic [1971] EA 493 laid down the general principles upon which the first appellate Court may act on when dealing with an appeal on sentence. An appellate Court can only interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial Court if it is satisfied that in arriving at the sentence the trial Court did not consider a relevant fact or that it considered an irrelevant factor or that in all the circumstances of the case, the sentence is harsh and excessive. However, the appellate Court must not lose sight of the fact that in sentencing, the trial Court exercised discretion and if the discretion is exercised judicially and not capriciously, the appellate Court should be slow to interfere with that discretion.
9. I have considered this matter with caution and care. The sentencing Court received the Appellant’s mitigations. The victim was seriously injured during the ordeal.
10. Sentencing is a crucial part in the criminal process and the administration of justice. It is also discretionary. In exercising the discretion, a sentencing Court is called upon to be guided by a raft of considerations. Such are discussed at length in the Sentencing Guidelines published on 29th April, 2016 vide Gazette Notice No. 2970 by the Hon. The Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya who is also the Chairperson of the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ) and in case law including the Supreme Court in Petition No. 15 of 2015 Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic [2017] eKLR.
11. This Court does not see how the sentencing proceedings are to be impugned. The Court exercised its discretion correctly more so given the age of the victim and the injuries inflicted on her.
12. In the end, the following final orders of this Court do hereby issue: -a. The Appeal against the sentence is dismissed.b. The sentence to run from 25th January, 2019 when the Appellant was charged.c. This file is hereby marked as closed.
Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KITALE THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY, 2023. A. C. MRIMAJUDGEJudgment delivered in open Court and in the presence of: -Jackson Erupe Lomo, the Appellant in person.Miss Kiptoo, Learned Prosecution Counsel instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent.Regina/Chemutai – Court Assistants.