[1992] KEHC 124 (KLR)
Given the appellant's extensive criminal record, including 17 previous convictions with 12 relevant to the current charge of burglary and stealing, the sentence of two years imprisonment on each limb of the charge was neither harsh nor excessive. The trial magistrate's order for corporal punishment was ambiguous as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1992] KEHC 124 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Musomba; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 77 of 1992
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with amendment to corporal punishment order
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Repeat Offenders, Burglary, Stealing
- 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
Musomba
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive given the appellant's previous convictions.
- 2 Whether the order for corporal punishment was properly specified.
Ratio Decidendi
Given the appellant's extensive criminal record, including 17 previous convictions with 12 relevant to the current charge of burglary and stealing, the sentence of two years imprisonment on each limb of the charge was neither harsh nor excessive. The trial magistrate's order for corporal punishment was ambiguous as to whether the appellant was to receive four strokes on each limb or in total. The High Court clarified and amended the order to specify that the appellant should receive two strokes of the cane on each charge, totaling four strokes. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed, with only the clarification of the corporal punishment order.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with amendment to corporal punishment order
Orders
- Appeal against sentence is dismissed.
- Order for corporal punishment is amended: appellant to receive two strokes of the cane on each charge, totaling four strokes.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
7 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
Musomba v Republic
High Court, at Mombasa July 9, 1992 Omolo J
Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1992
July 9, 1992, Omolo J delivered the following Judgment.
The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of burglary and stealing contrary to sections 304(2) and 279(b) of the Penal Code. The facts supporting the charge were then stated and the appellant admitted those facts. The facts he admitted disclosed the offences charged against him. The appellant does not appeal against his conviction.
The appeal against sentence has no merit because the appellant had 17 previous convictions, 12 of which were relevant to the present charge. In those circumstances, I do not see how the sentence of two years imprisonment on each limb of the charge can be said to be harsh or excessive.The Magistrate made a blanket order that he appellant should receive 4 strokes of the cane without specifying whether the appellant was to receive 4 strokes of the cane on each limb. I take it he meant that the appellant should receive in all 4 strokes of the cane, and that must mean the magistrate sentenced him to receive 2 strokes of the cane on each of the charge. I amend the order of the magistrate to that extent, but the appeal against sentence fails and I dismiss it.