[2019] KEHC 4899 (KLR)
The court found that the offences of house breaking and stealing were committed in a single act or transaction. According to established legal principles and the cited authority of Peter Mbugua Kabui vs. Republic (2016) eKLR, sentences for offences arising from a single transaction should run concurrently. The trial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 4899 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Muinde Wambua Wumo; Applicant: Dennis Kitivo Mbuvi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitui
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 321 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- concurrent sentences substituted for consecutive sentences; matter remitted for further proceedings against co-accused
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, House Breaking, Stealing, Criminal Revision, Trial Procedure
- 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
Muinde Wambua Wumo
Applicant
Dennis Kitivo Mbuvi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences for offences arising from a single transaction.
- 2 Whether the sentences imposed were lawful and appropriate under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the offences of house breaking and stealing were committed in a single act or transaction. According to established legal principles and the cited authority of Peter Mbugua Kabui vs. Republic (2016) eKLR, sentences for offences arising from a single transaction should run concurrently. The trial court's order for consecutive sentences was therefore improper. The High Court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the consecutive sentences and substitute them with concurrent sentences of one year imprisonment for each limb of the charge. The court further directed that the lower court file be placed before the...
Court Disposition
concurrent sentences substituted for consecutive sentences; matter remitted for further proceedings against co-accused
Orders
- The consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court are set aside.
- The applicant is to serve one year imprisonment on each limb of the charge, sentences to run concurrently.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITUI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 321 OF 2018
MUINDE WAMBUA WUMO............................1ST APPLICANT
DENNIS KITIVO MBUVI.................................2ND APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.............................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. This file was placed before the Court for Revision pursuant to the provisions of Section 362of the Criminal Procedure Code.It is my duty to satisfy myself of the propriety of the sentence passed.
2. The offender herein, Muinde Wambua Wumo,was arraigned in Court to answer charges of House Breaking contrary to Section 304(1)(b)and Stealingcontrary to Section 279(b)of the Penal Code.Having admitted the charges, he was convicted and sentenced thus:
1st Limb –To serve one (1) year imprisonment.
2nd Limb –To serve 1½ years imprisonment.
Sentences to run consecutively.
3. Section 14of the Criminal Procedure Codeprovides thus:
“(1) Subject to subsection (3), when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more distinct offences, the court may sentence him, for those offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which the court is competent to impose;and those punishments when consisting of imprisonment shall commence the one after the expiration of the other in the order the court may direct, unless the court directs that the punishments shall run concurrently.
(2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the court, by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to impose on conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher court.
(3) Except in cases to which section 7(1) applies, nothing in this section shall authorize a subordinate court to pass, on any person at one trial, consecutive sentences—
(a) of imprisonment which amount in the aggregate to more than fourteen years, or twice the amount of imprisonment which the court, in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction, is competent to impose, whichever is the less; or
(b) of fines which amount in the aggregate to more than twice the amount which the court is so competent to impose.
(4) For the purposes of appeal, the aggregate of consecutive sentences imposed under this section in case of convictions for several offences at one trial shall be deemed to be a single sentence.”
4. In the case of Peter Mbugua Kabui vs. Republic (2016) eKLRthe Court of Appeal stated thus:
“As a general principle, the practice is that if an accused person commits a series of offences at the same time in a single act/transaction a concurrent sentence should be given. However, if separate and distinct offences are committed in different criminal transactions, even though the counts may be in one charge sheet and one trial, it is not illegal to mete out a consecutive term of imprisonment. It is our considered view that the exception in Section 14 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code is inapplicable to this case in light of the provisions of Section 7 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. We further observe that Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that for purposes of an appeal, the aggregate of consecutive sentences imposed in case of convictions for several offences at one trial, shall be deemed to be a single sentence. We take the view that given the circumstances of this case, the consecutive sentences totaling 20 years imposed on the appellant, cannot said to be excessive. In any event, as we have pointed out earlier, severity of sentence is a question of fact and this Court has no jurisdiction to consider issues of fact in a second appeal. Is the sentence illegal or unlawful" We find that the sentence was legal and lawful, and we have no legal basis for interfering with the same.”
5. It is apparent that the offences herein were committed in a single act/transaction. In that regard I do set aside the consecutive sentences as ordered by the trial Court and substitute the same with the following order:
1st Limb of the Charge –To serve one (1) year imprisonment.
2nd Limb of the Charge – To serve one (1) year imprisonment.
Sentences to run concurrently.
6. Further, I do note that the offender was jointly charged with another who denied the charges. I direct that the Lower Court file be placed before the Chief Magistrate for purposes of proceeding with the hearing against the 2nd Accused (Dennis Kitivo Mbuvi).Mention on the 17th July, 2019.
7. It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kitui this 4th day of July, 2019.
L. N. MUTENDE
JUDGE