[2006] KEHC 1272 (KLR)
Although the sentence imposed was within the legal maximum, the trial court failed to adequately consider the appellant's status as a first offender and, crucially, her age as a minor at the time of the offence. The trial court's sentencing notes were insufficient, and it did not explore alternative sentences such...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1272 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mwende Mwini; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 255 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Only
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced to time served; appellant to be released unless otherwise lawfully held
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Juvenile Justice, Stealing by Servant
- 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
Mwende Mwini
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Only
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of four years imprisonment imposed on a first offender who was a minor was manifestly harsh and excessive.
- 2 Whether the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discretion, particularly in light of the appellant's age and status as a first offender.
Ratio Decidendi
Although the sentence imposed was within the legal maximum, the trial court failed to adequately consider the appellant's status as a first offender and, crucially, her age as a minor at the time of the offence. The trial court's sentencing notes were insufficient, and it did not explore alternative sentences such as probation or community service, nor did it refer the matter to the children's court as required by law for juvenile offenders. Given these omissions, and considering the appellant had already served a significant portion of her sentence and had a young child in custody with her, the High Court found the sentence manifestly excessive and commuted it to the period already...
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced to time served; appellant to be released unless otherwise lawfully held
Orders
- The appellant's sentence is commuted to the term already served.
- The appellant shall be released from prison custody forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
Criminal Appeal 255 of 2005
(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case number 2643 of 2005 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kibera, - Ms. Muchira, SRM)
MWENDE MWINI ……………………..............................................……….…………….… APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …………………..........................................…………………..……………..RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The Appellant, [particulars withheld pursuant to section 76(5) of the Children Act, 2001]was arraigned before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kibera on one count of stealing by servant contrary to Section 281 of the Penal Code. He pleaded guilty the charge and was accordingly convicted on her plea of guilty. Upon conviction the Appellant was sentenced to four (4) years imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the sentence, the Appellant lodged the instant Appeal limited to sentence only.
In her petition of Appeal on sentence, the Appellant stated that being a first offender the sentence imposed was too excessive.
In her oral submissions in support of the Appeal on sentence, the Appellant reiterated that the sentence imposed was harsh ad excessive. That she was remorseful. That she had a six months child whom she gave birth to whilst in prison. Finally she submitted that she was fifteen years old.
Mr. Makura, Learned State Counsel who appeared for the State opposed the Appeal. According to the Learned State Counsel, the sentence of 4 years of imprisonment imposed was legal considering that the maximum sentence permitted upon conviction for such an offence is 7 years imprisonment. Counsel submitted further that the trial Magistrate exercised her discretion properly.
Sentencing is a matter for the discretion of the trial Court. The discretion must however be exercised judicially and not capriciously. The trial Court must be guided by evidence and sound legal principles. The Court must take into account all relevant factors and exclude all extraneous or irrelevant factors. The trial Court’s notes on sentence in this matter are sketchy. In a case, as this one, where the Appellant is sentenced to such long prison term, the Court seized of the case is obliged to make detailed notes on the matters the Court has taken into account in arriving at the sentence. Such detailed notes are however not essential in cases where only one sentence is provided by the Penal provisions such as capital offences.
I have been asked to interfere with the sentence. As I stated earlier sentencing is discretionary and unless it is shown that the sentence is manifestly harsh and excessive, an Appellate Court would hardly interfere. See WANJEMA VS REPUBLIC (1971) EA 493. The offence for which the Appellant was convicted carries a maximum jail term of 7 years imprisonment and hard labour. In the instant case, the Appellant was handed a jail term of 4 years. Although the sentence is legal, however considering that the Appellant was a first offender, it would appear that the sentence was excessive. As already stated, the trial Court’s notes on sentence were sketchy and consequently, I am unable to tell the basis upon which the Learned Magistrate opted to impose on the Appellant imprisonment for a term of 4 years. Instead of perhaps placing her on probation or community service orders. That being the case I am obliged to reconsider the facts and circumstances of this case. The Complainant was a house help who stole money from her employer. The amount involved was not substantial. In sentencing the Appellant to 4 years imprisonment the Learned Magistrate considered the fact that the house helps are important people in society. However this alone did not call for such harsh and excessive sentence. After all the Appellant was a first offender. There is also the issue that the Appellant was a child at the time of the commission of the offence. I observed her during the hearing of the Appeal, and I was convinced that she was not at all an adult at the time of the commission of the offence. That being the case, had the trial Court taken the trouble to ascertain the age of the Appellant, perhaps it would have come to the conclusion that the Appellant’s case was best handled by the children’s Court.
I have agonized over the appropriate order to make in the circumstances of this case. I have been tempted to invoke the provisions of the children Act and impose any of the sentences recommended under Section 191 of the said Act. However, I am cognizant of the fact that the Appellant now has a child of 6 months who is incarcerated alongside the Appellant. The Appellant has also served 11/2years of her jail tem. If remision is taken into account, she may be left with another 1 year or so to serve.
Taking into account all the foregoing, the order which best commends itself to me is to commute the Appellant’s jail term to the term so far served with the consequence that the Appellant should forthwith be released from prison custody unless otherwise lawfully held.
Orders accordingly.
Dated at Nairobi this 2nd day of October, 2006.
……………………………………..
MAKHANDIA
JUDGE