[2014] KEHC 6882 (KLR)
The court found that although the appellant was a repeat offender and the offence was serious, the sentence of ten years imprisonment was excessive in the circumstances. The court considered the appellant's mitigation, the proportionality of the sentence to the offence, and the fact that the complainant was entitled...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 6882 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Moses Mutiso Kivuva; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 134 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- sentence varied
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Grievous Harm, Sentencing Principles, Repeat Offender, Mitigation, Proportionality of 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
Moses Mutiso Kivuva
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of ten years imprisonment for grievous harm was proportionate to the offence committed.
- 2 Whether the appellant's status as a repeat offender and his mitigation warranted interference with the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the appellant was a repeat offender and the offence was serious, the sentence of ten years imprisonment was excessive in the circumstances. The court considered the appellant's mitigation, the proportionality of the sentence to the offence, and the fact that the complainant was entitled to claim compensation. The court exercised its discretion to interfere with the sentence and substituted it with a term of three years imprisonment, finding this to be a more appropriate and proportionate punishment given all the circumstances.
Court Disposition
sentence varied
Orders
- The sentence of ten years imprisonment is set aside and substituted with three years imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 134 OF 2013
MOSES MUTISO KIVUVA.................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC .......................................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence in Makueni Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 150 of 2013 by Hon. R. Yator Ag. SRM on 18/6/2013)
JUDGMENT
The Appellant was charged with grievous harm contrary to Section 234 of the Penal Code. The particulars being that on the 15thday of March, 2013 at Kivuti village, Kyusini sub-location within Makueni County unlawfully did grievous harm to Paul Kimanthi by cutting his left hand fingers.
He was sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment having admitted the charge. He now mitigates on sentence on grounds the he is remorseful. He is married and has children who depend on him.
As a first appellate court, I have the duty of reconsidering circumstances taken into consideration in reaching the decision to mete out sentence. ( seeOkeno versus Republic [1972] E.A. 32.
In opposing the appeal, Mrs Abuga the learned State Counsel argued that the law provides for a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for such an offence therefore 10 years imprisonment meted out was within the law.
The appellant herein was not a first offender. He had been convicted of an offence of creating disturbance, housebreaking and stealing. He was a repeat offender. He admitted the charge at first instance. The issue in contention was land. He claims in his mitigation that he had been evicted from the portion of land and he had nowhere to go.
The question to be posed is whether the sentence passed was proportionate to the offence committed?
Factors taken into consideration show that the appellant has the propensity of committing offences. However, the kind of offence committed entitles the complainant to claim compensation against the appellant. Taking into consideration all these it is apparent that the sentence imposed was excessive.
From the foregoing, it is necessary for this court to interfere with the sentence meted out. I therefore set aside the sentence passed and substitute it with three (3) years imprisonment.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVEREDat MACHAKOS this 19THday of FEBRUARY 2014
L.N. MUTENDE
JUDGE