[2008] KEHC 3208 (KLR)
The High Court found that although the appellant admitted the offence of possession of cannabis sativa, the sentence of 10 years imprisonment was harsh in the circumstances. The court noted procedural irregularity in the manner the plea was taken, as the plea and facts were not recorded together, which could have...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 3208 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mutinda Kieke; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 58 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed_in_part
- Judges
- I Lenaola
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Possession of Narcotics, Plea 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
Mutinda Kieke
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed for possession of cannabis sativa was excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the plea was properly taken and if any injustice was occasioned to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that although the appellant admitted the offence of possession of cannabis sativa, the sentence of 10 years imprisonment was harsh in the circumstances. The court noted procedural irregularity in the manner the plea was taken, as the plea and facts were not recorded together, which could have occasioned injustice. However, since the appellant admitted the offence, the conviction was not set aside. The court exercised its discretion to interfere with the sentence, reducing it to two years from the date of the original sentence, finding this to be just in the circumstances.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed_in_part
Orders
- The sentence is reduced to two (2) years from the date the appellant was sentenced, i.e., 28/3/2007.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
H.CR.C 58 OF 2007
MUTINDA KIEKE ………………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC............................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The Appellant was arrested on 3/3/2007 and later charged with the offence of being in possession of cannabis sativa contrary to section 3 (1) as read with section 2 (a) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Control Act No. 4 of 1994. He had 4 rolls of bhang and when he appeared for plea on 6/3/2007, he admitted the offence.
2. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison on 28/3/2007 the day the facts were read to him. I agree with Mr O’Mirera that it is good practice to take the plea and facts together, which did not happen in this case.
3. The Appeal is limited to sentence and the Appellant only says that he has a family to take care of and that the bhang was for his own use.
4. An appellate court can only interfere with sentence if the trial court misapplied or misapprehended the law applicable. In this case, the plea may have been poorly taken and injustice occasioned to the Appellant. However, he admitted the offence.
5. The sentence in my view is however harsh in the circumstances and I deem it proper to interfere with it.
6. I will allow the Appeal to the extent that the sentence is reduced to a sentence of two (2) years from the date the Appellant was sentenced i.e. 28/3/2007.
7. Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 3rdday of April2008.
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE