[2025] KEHC 6807 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 6807 (KLR)

The court found that the two offences—being unlawfully present in Kenya and entering through an undesignated point—were committed as part of a continuous chain of events or a single transaction. The offences were inseparable and arose from the same conduct. Therefore, the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences, contrary to established legal principles and sentencing guidelines. The appropriate sentence was for the terms to run concurrently, not consecutively. The trial court's sentence was thus set aside and substituted with an order for concurrent sentences.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 6807 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Allow Edin Marsack; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mandera
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 May 2025
Case Number
Criminal Appeal E002 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_allowed_in_part
Judges
JN Onyiego
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, Immigration Offences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences Immigration Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allow Edin Marsack

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences instead of concurrent sentences for offences arising from the same transaction.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was illegal or excessive in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the two offences—being unlawfully present in Kenya and entering through an undesignated point—were committed as part of a continuous chain of events or a single transaction. The offences were inseparable and arose from the same conduct. Therefore, the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences, contrary to established legal principles and sentencing guidelines. The appropriate sentence was for the terms to run concurrently, not consecutively. The trial court's sentence was thus set aside and substituted with an order for concurrent sentences.

Court Disposition

appeal_allowed_in_part

Orders

  • The sentence imposed by the trial court is set aside.
  • The appellant shall serve three years imprisonment for each count, sentences to run concurrently.