[1994] KECA 31 (KLR)
The appellants, having pleaded guilty and admitted the facts, had no right of appeal against conviction. The sentences imposed by the trial magistrate were within the statutory limits and were considered lenient given the maximum penalties prescribed by law. The High Court was correct in summarily rejecting the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1994] KECA 31 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Macdonald Makasi; Appellant: Alfred Mulos; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 66 of 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Robbery, Plea of Guilty, Sentencing, Right of Appeal, Corporal Punishment
- 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
Macdonald Makasi
Appellant
Alfred Mulos
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants had a right of appeal against conviction after pleading guilty.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.
- 3 Whether the summary rejection of the appeal by the High Court was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellants, having pleaded guilty and admitted the facts, had no right of appeal against conviction. The sentences imposed by the trial magistrate were within the statutory limits and were considered lenient given the maximum penalties prescribed by law. The High Court was correct in summarily rejecting the appeal against sentence as there was no sufficient ground to interfere with the sentence. Consequently, the Court of Appeal upheld the summary rejection and dismissed the appeal.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The summary rejection of the appeal by the High Court is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Criminal Appeal 66 of 1994
MACDONALD MAKASI
ALFRED MULOS………………………….............................……………………….APPELLANTS
AND
REPUBLIC…………………………….............................…………………………..RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Eldoret (Mr. Justice Aganyanya) dated 1st February 1992
IN
H.C.CR.A. NO. 215 OF 1992)
*************************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The two appellants, who are brothers, were convicted on their own plea of guilty, of robbery contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane followed by 5 years police supervision. Their appeal to the Superior Court against sentence was summarily rejected under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Having admitted the offence and the facts as stated by the prosecution before a conviction was entered, the appellants had no right of appeal against conviction. So their complaints in this regard before us cannot be considered and are rejected.
Robbery under section 296(1) carries a maximum sentence of 14 years together with corporal punishment not exceeding 28 strokes. The sentences imposed by the trial Magistrate were quite lenient and the claim by the appellants that they were harsh and excessive is baseless.
The complaints directed against conviction must be disregarded as the appellants had pleaded guilty and even the Superior Court would have had no power to deal with them.
From what we have said, it must follow that the summary rejection was proper and we accordingly uphold it. In the result this appeal fails and it is dismissed.
Dated and delivered at Nakuru this 27th day of September, 1994.
R.O. KWACH
………………………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
M.G. MULI
……………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
P.K. TUNOI
……………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR