[2016] KEHC 5360 (KLR)
The court found that although the offence of stock theft is serious and warrants a deterrent sentence, the trial magistrate failed to sufficiently consider the appellant's status as a first offender, the number and value of animals stolen, and the mitigation offered. The sentence of seven years was deemed manifestly...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5360 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mutwiri Muroki; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 119 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal on sentence allowed; sentence reduced.
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Stock Theft, Penal Code Section 278
- 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
Mutwiri Muroki
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of seven years imprisonment for stock theft was manifestly harsh in the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the offence of stock theft is serious and warrants a deterrent sentence, the trial magistrate failed to sufficiently consider the appellant's status as a first offender, the number and value of animals stolen, and the mitigation offered. The sentence of seven years was deemed manifestly harsh in the circumstances. The court exercised its discretion to interfere with the sentence and substituted it with a term of four years imprisonment from the date of the original sentence.
Court Disposition
Appeal on sentence allowed; sentence reduced.
Orders
- The appellant shall serve four years imprisonment from the date of sentence by the trial court.
- The appeal on sentence succeeds to the extent of the reduction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2015
MUTWIRI MUROKI .................................................. APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………………………………………RESPONDENT
(From the original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.3750 of 2015 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Maua by Hon. A.G Munene– Senior Resident Magistrate)
JUDGMENT
The appellant,MUTWIRI MUROKI, was convicted on a count of Stealing stock contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code. He was then sentenced to serve seven years imprisonment. This was after he had pleaded guilty.
The particulars of the offence were that on 5th November, 2015 at Akirango'ondu, Igembe Central District in Meru County, he stole two goats and one calf all valued at Kshs.20 000 the property of JACOB KUYO.
His appeal was against sentence only. He claimed it was manifestly harsh.
Section 278 of the penal code provides as follows:
If the thing stolen is any of the following things, that is to say, a horse, mare, gelding, ass, mule, camel, ostrich, bull, cow, ox, ram, ewe, wether, goat or pig, or the young thereof the offender is liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding fourteen years.
This section prescribes a maximum sentence of not more than fourteen years imprisonment. This is irrespective of the number of the stolen animals.
In the case ofSAMMUEL REIGO vs. Republic Criminal App. No. 16 of 2015(Marsabit) I observed the following:
Before a sentence is passed under this section, a trial magistrate ought to be guided broadly by the following considerations:
The age of the accused person,
The level of education if any especially where he comes from a community whose culture glorifies stock theft,
The number of animals involved,
The criminal record of the accused if any; and
The mitigation proffered by the accused.
The prosecutor informed the trial magistrate that he was a first offender. The animals were not recovered.
Though the court has a duty to send out a very strong signal against such offences, I am of the opinion that the sentence was manifestly harsh in the circumstances of this case.
Having considered all the necessary factors, I am persuaded to interfere with the sentence imposed by the learned trial magistrate. The appellant will serve 4 (four) years imprisonment from the date he was sentenced by the trial court. His appeal on sentence succeeds to that extent.
Dated at MERU This 11thDay of MAY 2016
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE