[2019] KEHC 3200 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 3200 (KLR)

The High Court found that the appellant was not at fault for failing to attend court on the day judgment was read, as he was unaware of the requirement to appear before Hon. Makori, CM, due to the existence of a parallel skeleton file. The sentencing in absentia denied the appellant the right to mitigate, a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 3200 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Mohamed Nyando Abdalla; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 223 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Revision
Outcome
Sentence of 10 years imprisonment set aside; matter remitted for mitigation and re-sentencing before a different magistrate.
Judges
AW Mwangi
Legal Topics
Sentencing Procedure, Mitigation Rights, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Conviction in Absentia
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Sentencing Procedure Mitigation Rights Supervisory Jurisdiction Conviction in Absentia

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Nyando Abdalla

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Revision

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing of the appellant in absentia contravened Section 194 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 50(2)(f) of the Constitution of Kenya.
  2. 2 Whether Section 206(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to read judgments and convict in absentia in the circumstances of this case.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was denied the right to mitigation before sentencing, and the legal effect thereof.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the appellant was not at fault for failing to attend court on the day judgment was read, as he was unaware of the requirement to appear before Hon. Makori, CM, due to the existence of a parallel skeleton file. The sentencing in absentia denied the appellant the right to mitigate, a fundamental right before sentencing. The mitigation purportedly offered after sentencing was of no legal effect, as the court was functus officio regarding sentence. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) of the Constitution and Sections 362-364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, held that the sentence imposed was improper and set it aside. The matter...

Court Disposition

Sentence of 10 years imprisonment set aside; matter remitted for mitigation and re-sentencing before a different magistrate.

Orders

  • The sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed on the appellant is set aside.
  • The lower court file is remitted to the Chief Magistrate’s Court for taking of the appellant’s mitigation and re-sentencing before any other Magistrate other than Hon. Makori, CM.