[2024] KEHC 4317 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, being a first offender, remorseful, and having pleaded guilty, coupled with the complainant's forgiveness and willingness to support his reintegration, satisfied the criteria for a non-custodial sentence. The probation report recommended unpaid public work, and the sentencing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 4317 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Quickmatt Onyiego; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E028 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review
- Outcome
- Custodial sentence set aside; applicant placed on probation for two months with community service and mediation.
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Guidelines, Probation Orders, Plea of Guilty, Victim Offender Mediation
- 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
Quickmatt Onyiego
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the custodial sentence imposed on the applicant was appropriate in light of the mitigating factors and probation report.
- 2 Whether the applicant qualifies for a non-custodial sentence based on the circumstances and objectives of sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, being a first offender, remorseful, and having pleaded guilty, coupled with the complainant's forgiveness and willingness to support his reintegration, satisfied the criteria for a non-custodial sentence. The probation report recommended unpaid public work, and the sentencing objectives—rehabilitation, restorative justice, reintegration—favoured a non-custodial approach. The court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to substitute the custodial sentence with a probation order, emphasizing the importance of mediation and reintegration for the applicant, who is a university student with no prior criminal record.
Court Disposition
Custodial sentence set aside; applicant placed on probation for two months with community service and mediation.
Orders
- The applicant is placed on a probation period of two months to serve a non-custodial sentence through community service.
- A meeting to be convened under the probation officer's leadership to promote victim-offender mediation.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Onyiego v Republic (Criminal Revision E028 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 4317 (KLR) (11 April 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 4317 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Criminal Revision E028 of 2024
RN Nyakundi, J
April 11, 2024
Between
Quickmatt Onyiego
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged with the offence of threatening to kill contrary to section 223(1) of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on 30th December, 2023 at around 08:00 hours in Kibulgeny village at Soy sub-county within Uasin Gishu county, without lawful excuse uttered words in Kiswahili “Kama hauna pesa leo nitafanya kitu yenye itafanya niuliwe ama nipelekwe jela tena.” While having in his hands a sharp stick and a broken piece of bottle, threatening to kill Isabella Onyiego.
2. The applicant pleaded guilty to the offence before Hon. C. Kesse on 2nd January, 2024 and as a consequence, he was convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to serve 6 months imprisonment.
3. The applicant has approached this court pursuant to sections 357,362,364& 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code as construed with Article 50(2) (p) & (q) as conjunctively read with Article 50(6)(a)&(b) of the Constitution..
4. The applicant seeks a sentence review based on the probation report filed on 25th March, 2024. The report indicates that the applicant is a third-year student at Maseno University undertaking Bachelor of Art in Kiswahili. His mother happens to be the complainant and she indicated that she has forgiven him and she is willing to take part in the re-integration process as she wishes to return him back to university. The report recommended that the applicant should be allowed to carry out unpaid public work at Kiplombe primary for a period of 2 months.
5. In determining whether to impose a custodial or non-custodial sentence, the court is required to take into account the following factors: -a)Gravity of the offence: - sentence of imprisonment should be avoided for misdemeanour.b)Criminal history of the offender. Taking into account the seriousness of the offences, first offenders should be considered for non-custodial sentence.c)Character of the offender: - non-custodial sentence are best suited for offenders who are already remorseful and receptive to rehabilitative measures.d)Protection of the community: - where the offender is likely to pose a threat to the community.e)Offender’s responsibility to third parties: - where there are people depending on the offender.
6. I have considered the offence in question and the aggravating factors. The sentencing objectives in Kenya have been captured in the Sentencing guidelines 2023 to be the following: -i.Retribution: to punish the offender for his/her criminal conduct in a just manner.ii.Deterrence: to deter the offender from committing a similar offence subsequently as well as to discourage other people from committing similar offences.iii.Rehabilitation: to enable the offender reform from his/her criminal disposition and become a law-abiding person.iv.Restorative justice: to address the needs arising from the criminal conduct such as loss and damages.v.Community protection: to protect the community by incapacitating the offender.vi.Denunciation: to communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct.vii.Reconciliation: To mend the relationship between the offender, the victim and the community.viii.Reintegration: To facilitate the re-entry of the offender into the society.
7. My considered view is that the present case satisfies the above criteria for reasons that the applicant is a first offender, he is remorseful, he pleaded guilty and the complainant is not opposed to his release. It appears that the parties have had a victim-offender mediation for the mother forgive him. Additionally, the applicant is a student who ought to go back to school and continue with his studies. All these factors considered wholesomely call for a non-custodial sentence.
8. This court is clothed with wide powers under article 165 (6) and (7) of the Constitution. and section 362 as read with section 364 of the CPC to look at the legality of the order on sentence by the trial court. Just a glance of it shows clear mitigation factors which reduces the seriousness of the offence or the culpability of the applicant. Again, with no special order of priority they include the following:a.Youth of the applicantb.Immaturity of the applicantc.The previous good character of the applicantd.Restitution of part of the stolen property to the complainante.A plea of guilty entered by the applicantf.Cooperation with the police by the applicant after the commission of the offenceg.Expression of remorse by the applicant before th trial court
9. In the upshot and in considering the objectives of sentencing in totality, I am inclined to place the applicant on a probation period of two (2) months C.S.O. In the course of serving non-custodial sentence through the leadership of the probation officer, a meeting be convened to promote victim offender mediation. Thereafter a report be filed with the court on the outcome of the mediation.
SIGNED, DATE AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024. ..................R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE