[1987] KEHC 60 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant, having pleaded guilty to stealing from his employer, was properly convicted. The sentence of 24 months imprisonment was not excessive given the breach of trust and the value of the stolen items. The recovery of only one item did not mitigate the seriousness of the offence. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1987] KEHC 60 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mohamud; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 256 of 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- ENA Torgbor
- Legal Topics
- Theft by Servant, Sentencing Principles, Plea of Guilty
- 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
Mohamud
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant for theft by servant was excessive.
- 2 Whether the conviction based on a guilty plea was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant, having pleaded guilty to stealing from his employer, was properly convicted. The sentence of 24 months imprisonment was not excessive given the breach of trust and the value of the stolen items. The recovery of only one item did not mitigate the seriousness of the offence. The appellate court saw no reason to interfere with the lower court's sentence and dismissed the appeal.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 256 OF 1987
MOHAMUD …………………….APPELLANTS
V
REPUBLIC…………….……RESPONDENT
Judgment
. The appellant was convicted for stealing various items valued at Kshs 10,110. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 24 months term of imprisonment. Apart from the radio that was recovered the rest of the stolen items were not. The appellant was employed as a servant. He therefore stole from his employer who had entrusted him with the responsibility of looking after a butchery. Bearing in mind the circumstances of this case the sentence of the lower court is not considered excessive.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
November 17,1987
TORGBOR
JUDGE