[2018] KEHC 5094 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate properly exercised discretion in sentencing the appellant to five years imprisonment for stealing stock, taking into account the appellant's previous conviction for a similar offence and the concerns expressed in the probation report. The court held that the sentence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 5094 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Maxwel Nyang’au Mokaya; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 42 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; sentence affirmed
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Repeat Offender, Stealing Stock, Appeal on Sentence
- 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
Maxwel Nyang’au Mokaya
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was harsh or excessive given the appellant's status as a repeat offender.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred in principle or failed to consider relevant or irrelevant facts in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial magistrate properly exercised discretion in sentencing the appellant to five years imprisonment for stealing stock, taking into account the appellant's previous conviction for a similar offence and the concerns expressed in the probation report. The court held that the sentence was not harsh or excessive in the circumstances, and there was no error in principle or consideration of irrelevant factors. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed and the sentence affirmed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; sentence affirmed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentence of five years imprisonment is affirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2016
MAXWEL NYANG’AU MOKAYA ............................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...................................................................................RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the original conviction and sentence of Hon. R.B.N Maloba – SRM dated 16th March, 2015 at the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kisii in Criminal Case No. 512 of 2015)
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant, MAXWELL NYANG’AU MOKAYA, faced a charge of stealing stock contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code (Chapter 63 of the Laws of Kenya). It was alleged that on 15th February 2015 at Igemo Sub location, Marani Sub-County of Kisii County, he stole one cow valued at Kshs. 25,000/= the property of MONICAH MOKE MAKORI.
2. The appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment. He now appeals against the sentence only.
3. In order to interfere with the trial court’s discretion to impose a sentence, the appellate court must be satisfied that the trial court failed to consider relevant facts or took into account irrelevant facts or erred in application of principle. It may also intervene where, considering all the circumstances, the sentence was harsh or excessive.
4. In imposing the sentence, the trial magistrate called for a probation report which showed that the appellant had criminal antecedents and had been jailed for three (3) years in 2012 for stealing. The appellant’s family expressed fear that if he was released he would be attacked because of his criminal past. The appellant confirmed that he had been jailed for three years for stealing.
5. Considering the facts that were before the trial court, I cannot say that the trial magistrate erred in finding that a harsher sentence was warranted given that the appellant was a repeat offender. The sentence is affirmed.
6. The appeal is dismissed.
Dated and delivered at Kisii this 23rdday of July2018.
D.S MAJANJA
JUDGE
Mr. Otieno, Senior Prosecution Counsel, instructed by Office of Director of Prosecutions.
Appellant in person.