[1982] KEHC 16 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant was properly identified as the person who stole the cigarettes, having been seen by supermarket staff in possession of the goods and apprehended as he attempted to leave without paying. The appellant's claim that the charge was fabricated due to a salary dispute was unsupported by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1982] KEHC 16 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mawa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 574 of 1982
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; sentence reduced
- Legal Topics
- Stealing, Shoplifting, Sentencing, Burden of Proof
- 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
Mawa
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was properly identified as the person who stole the cigarettes.
- 2 Whether the conviction was based on sufficient evidence.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant was properly identified as the person who stole the cigarettes, having been seen by supermarket staff in possession of the goods and apprehended as he attempted to leave without paying. The appellant's claim that the charge was fabricated due to a salary dispute was unsupported by any documentary evidence or witness testimony. The trial magistrate was justified in rejecting the appellant's defense. However, considering the value of the stolen property and the fact that the goods were recovered, the sentence of one year was deemed excessive and was reduced to eight months' imprisonment. The conviction was upheld as proper and supported by the evidence.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; sentence reduced
Orders
- The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
- The sentence of one year’s imprisonment is reduced to eight months’ imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 574 OF 1982
MAWA.............................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant was charged and convicted of stealing contrary to Section 275 of the Penal Code (Cap 63) in that he stole at Muthaiga Mini Market two cartons of Benson and Hedges Cigarettes valued Kshs 360. He was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. He appealed to this court against his conviction and sentence complaining that his case of stealing was planted on him, because he had gone to collect his arrears of salary amounting to Kshs 2,400. That no prosecution witness saw him stealing and that the witness who alleged that the appellant stole did not report to his employer about this theft while the appellant was in the super market.
This was a shoplifting case where the appellant was actually spotted by the supermarket lifting two cartons of cigarettes which he had on his person. He was ambushed as he walked past the cash counter. He was challenged and offered to pay for them, he had no money but asked the cashier to allow him to use the telephone. He was allowed but he was unable to contact his friend. Police were called and he was arrested while in possession of the cartons of cigarettes.
The appellant maintains that the charge was framed by the complainant because he, the appellant, had gone and demanded his three months’ salary. Claiming that he had been the complainant’s employee. If he had been he could have produced a letter of employment or any other document or witness to support his story. Neither the complainant nor his attendants (PW 2 and PW 3) knew the appellant. The trial magistrate refused his story and I am satisfied that she was fully justified in reaching that conclusion. Appellant was properly convicted. The appellant’s appeal against conviction is therefore dismissed.
With regard to the sentence imposed on him by the trial magistrate, I think that in view of the value of the property attempted to be stolen and that the goods were recovered, the sentence of one year’s imprisonment is manifestly excessive. I reduce the sentence of one year’s imprisonment to eight months’ imprisonment. Subject thereto the appellant’s appeal against sentence is also dismissed. Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 12th day of November 1982.
M.G MULI
JUDGE.