[2023] KEHC 22192 (KLR)
The court found that the offences for which the applicant was convicted were committed at the same time and in a single act. Guided by Section 14(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the principle established in Peter Mbugua Kabui v Republic, the court held that sentences for offences arising from a single...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 22192 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Benard Mulatya; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitui
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision Application 062 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Sentences to run concurrently.
- Judges
- F Wangari
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Sentences, Consecutive Sentences, Revision 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
Benard Mulatya
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the applicant for multiple offences should run concurrently or consecutively.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences for offences committed in a single transaction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the offences for which the applicant was convicted were committed at the same time and in a single act. Guided by Section 14(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the principle established in Peter Mbugua Kabui v Republic, the court held that sentences for offences arising from a single transaction should run concurrently. The trial court's order for consecutive sentences was therefore revised, and the applicant's sentences were ordered to run concurrently from the date of sentence.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Sentences to run concurrently.
Orders
- The sentences imposed by the trial court shall run concurrently.
- The imprisonment term is to run from the date of sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Mulatya v Republic (Criminal Revision Application 062 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 22192 (KLR) (16 February 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 22192 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kitui
Criminal Revision Application 062 of 2022
F Wangari, J
February 16, 2023
Between
Benard Mulatya
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Judgment
1. The applicant herein was charged with the following offences and sentenced as hereunder;a.In Count 1; House breaking contrary to section 304 (1) (a) and stealing contrary to section 279 (b) of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to a fine Ksh. 60,000 in default 2 years imprisonment.b.Count 2; Resisting arrest contrary to section 103 (a) of the National Police Act. He was sentenced to a fine of Ksh. 10,000 in default 6 months imprisonment.c.Count 3; Assaulting a police officer contrary to section 103 (a) of the National Police Service. He was sentenced to a fine of Ksh. 30,000, in default 1 year imprisonment
2. The appellant has now moved this court via an application filed on 28/6/2022, seeking to have the sentences above which run consecutively be revised to an imprisonment term that runs concurrently. The application was not opposed.
3. Section 14 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code on sentences in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial, states;"‘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 therefore 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."
4. In Peter Mbugua Kabui v Republic, the Court of Appeal stated;"‘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 for the conviction in the two counts’"
5. In the matter before me, the offences committed by the applicant were committed at the same time and in a single act. I am therefore guided by in para 3 and 4 above.
6. From the above discussion, I find that the application has merits. The sentence passed by the trial court shall therefore run concurrently. The imprisonment term is to run from the date of sentence.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023. …………………………F. WANGARIJUDGE