[2013] KEHC 1409 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 1409 (KLR)

The court found, based on the probation officer's report, that the applicant was not welcome in his community and, considering the gravity of the offence of stock theft, determined that the applicant was not suitable for a community service order. Consequently, the original custodial sentence of two years'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 1409 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Nicholas Kipsang Bett; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kericho
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 259 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision
Outcome
application for revision dismissed; custodial sentence upheld
Judges
B Ongaya
Legal Topics
Stock Theft, Sentencing, Community Service Orders
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Stock Theft Sentencing Community Service Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Kipsang Bett

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is suitable for a community service order in lieu of imprisonment.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court should be upheld or revised.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, based on the probation officer's report, that the applicant was not welcome in his community and, considering the gravity of the offence of stock theft, determined that the applicant was not suitable for a community service order. Consequently, the original custodial sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed by the trial court was upheld, as there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the sentence.

Court Disposition

application for revision dismissed; custodial sentence upheld

Orders

  • The sentence by the honourable trial court is upheld.