[1984] KEHC 12 (KLR)
The court found that while the appellants' conduct satisfied the ingredients for preparation to commit a felony, the specific facts—preparation to commit theft—were covered under section 308(2) of the Penal Code, not section 308(1). Convicting under the wrong section was prejudicial, as established in Kipsana v R...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1984] KEHC 12 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Unnamed Appellants; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 556 & 586 of 1984
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed_in_part
- Legal Topics
- Preparation to Commit Felony, Penal Code Section 308, Sentencing Discrepancy, Corporal Punishment, Theft Related Offences
- 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
Unnamed Appellants
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction under section 308(1) of the Penal Code was proper when the facts disclosed an offence under section 308(2).
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate in light of the correct section of the Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the appellants' conduct satisfied the ingredients for preparation to commit a felony, the specific facts—preparation to commit theft—were covered under section 308(2) of the Penal Code, not section 308(1). Convicting under the wrong section was prejudicial, as established in Kipsana v R (1975) EA 253. The court therefore substituted the conviction to section 308(2) and varied the sentence to 18 months' imprisonment for each appellant, removing the corporal punishment component.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed_in_part
Orders
- Conviction under section 308(1) of the Penal Code set aside and substituted with conviction under section 308(2).
- Sentences of 10 years' imprisonment and 10 strokes set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court, at Nairobi November 6,1984
Sachdeva J
Criminal Appeal no 556 & 586 of 1984
Criminal la w - preparation to commit a felony contrary to section 308(1) Penal Code cap 63 - charge disclosing felony covered in section 308(2) - whether court could alter sentence in view of the discrepancy.
The appellants were found hiding behind a fence at night time and sprinted away when challenged by the police and were arrested at gun-point. Upon their person were found various items whoch could be used in connection with theft and they were not at their abode at the time. They fully satisifed the ingredients for the offence of preparation to commit a felony.
On being challenged they were found guilty of the offence of preparation to commit a felony and sentenced to 10 years and 10 strokes corporal punishment. They were aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, and appealed.
Held:
1. It was uncontroverted that the appellants were found concealing themselves behind a fence at night time and that they ran off upon challenge by the police and that they had on them instruments of stealing.
2. It was prejudicial to convict the appellants of the offence under section 308(1) of the Penal Code when they could hav been guilty of an offence under section 308(2) of the Penal Code cap 63.
Appeals allowed in part. Sentence varied.
Cases
Kipsana v R (1975) EA 253
Statutes Penal Code section 308(1), 308(2)
Advocates
J Njongoro (state counsel) for Respondents
November 6, 1984, Sachdeva J delivered the following Judgment. I have consolidated the two appeals.
Both the appellants, who had been jointly charged, were convicted by the learned resident magistrate, Nairobi, of preparing to commit a felony contrary to section 308(1) of the Penal Code, and each was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, with 10 strokes of corporal punishment.
I have given due consideration to all that the appellants have urged in the respective petitions of appeal, but there was evidence from a policeman, which the learned magistrate was entitled to accept, that both of them were hiding together behind a fence near a Tour company at night-time, that they started to run away when challenged to stop, that they were arrested at a gun-point, that they were found with various items which could be used in connection with a theft and that they were not at their place of abode at that time.
However, the felony specified in the charge, is theft, which is also specifically covered in section 308(2) of the Penal Code and applying the principle in Kipsana v R (1975) EA 253, it was prejudicial to convict the appellant of an offence under section 308(1) of the Penal Code when they could not have been guilty of an offence under section 308(2) of the Penal Code.
Consequently, I will substitute a conviction under section 308(2) of the Penal Code, in respect of both the appellants. I will set aside the sentences imposed upon then and in lieu thereof, substitute a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment upon each of them (with no corporal punishment).