[2022] KEHC 551 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, being a first offender and having shown remorse, together with the fact that all stolen goods were recovered and she had already served about one year in custody, satisfied the requirements for a non-custodial sentence. The court held that the ends of justice had been met by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 551 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Sylvia Mureke Muloma; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E383 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application for revision allowed; custodial sentence revised to period already served
- Judges
- JM Bwonwong'a
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Policy, First Offender Principle, Non Custodial Sentence, Stealing Offence, Mitigation, Victim Impact Statement
- 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
Sylvia Mureke Muloma
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the custodial sentence imposed on the applicant, a first offender convicted of stealing, should be revised to a non-custodial sentence.
- 2 Whether the period already served in custody is sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, being a first offender and having shown remorse, together with the fact that all stolen goods were recovered and she had already served about one year in custody, satisfied the requirements for a non-custodial sentence. The court held that the ends of justice had been met by the period already served, and thus the custodial sentence should be revised. The applicant was ordered to be set free unless held on other lawful warrants.
Court Disposition
application for revision allowed; custodial sentence revised to period already served
Orders
- The applicant is set free unless held on other lawful warrants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Muloma v Republic (Criminal Revision E383 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 551 (KLR) (Crim) (8 June 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 551 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal Revision E383 of 2021
JM Bwonwong'a, J
June 8, 2022
Between
Sylvia Mureke Muloma
Appellant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being an application for revision of the order of the Hon. M.A. Opondo, dated 07/07/2021 in the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Makadara in Criminal Case No. 1765 of 2021, Republic v Sylvia Mureke Muloma)
Ruling
1. The applicant through her undated chamber summons applied under certificate of urgency to have his sentence of eighteen months (18) imposed in respect of the offence of stealing contrary to section 281 of the Penal Code(Cap 63) Laws of Kenya, be reviewed by imposing a non-custodial sentence.
2. In support of her application the applicant in her notice of motion has stated as follows. She is a first offender. She is remorseful.
3. Furthermore, the applicant has stated that she is 35 years old married with two children aged 16 and 9 years old.
4. Additionally, the applicant has stated that she has acquired skills in cooking different types of food while in prison.
5. Counsel for the respondent (Ms Elizabeth Kibathi) has conceded the application. She has submitted that according to the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines a first offender should not generally be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
6. I find that the stolen goods namely five male shirts, three female dresses, two pairs of female shoes, and assorted cosmetic products all value at shs 81, 000/- were all recovered.
7. I find that the complainant in her sworn evidence in court tendered as part of the victim impact statement, testified that the applicant was her maid and that she stole her goods. She further testified that although the applicant has apologized she wanted the applicant to learn a lesson from her stealing. In short, she did not forgive her.
8. I have considered the mitigation of the applicant. I have also taken into account that the stolen goods were recovered. I further find that the applicant has been in custody for now about one year.
9. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I find that the ends of justice have been met by the sentence already served by the applicant with the result that she is hereby set free unless she is held on other lawful warrants.
RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2022. J M BWONWONG’AJUDGEIn the presence of-Mr. Kinyua: Court Assistant.The applicant in personMs Maureen Akunja for the respondent.