[2024] KEHC 6707 (KLR)
The court found that the offence of malicious damage to property, for which the applicant was convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment, was suitable for a non-custodial sentence. The applicant had demonstrated remorse, gained skills while in custody, and the sentence review report was favorable,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 6707 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Charles Ouma; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E147 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Sentence Review Ruling
- Outcome
- sentence reviewed; applicant released unless otherwise lawfully held
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Malicious Damage to Property, Sentencing Review, Non Custodial Sentences, Community Service Orders
- 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
Charles Ouma
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Sentence Review Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's sentence should be reviewed in light of the favorable sentence review report and the circumstances of the offence.
- 2 Whether a non-custodial sentence is appropriate for the offence of malicious damage to property in this case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the offence of malicious damage to property, for which the applicant was convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment, was suitable for a non-custodial sentence. The applicant had demonstrated remorse, gained skills while in custody, and the sentence review report was favorable, recommending community service. The court held that the objectives of sentencing, including rehabilitation and reintegration, had been met by the period already served. Accordingly, the sentence was reviewed to the period already served, and the applicant was ordered to be released unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
sentence reviewed; applicant released unless otherwise lawfully held
Orders
- The sentence is reviewed to the period already served.
- The applicant shall be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Ouma v Republic (Criminal Revision E147 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 6707 (KLR) (7 June 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 6707 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Criminal Revision E147 of 2024
RN Nyakundi, J
June 7, 2024
Between
Charles Ouma
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged with the offence of Malicious damage to property contrary to section 339(1) of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on 11th April, 2024 at about 1000hrs in yellow line area, Langas estate in Kapseret sub county within Uasin Gishu county, the applicant willfully and unlawfully damaged the three windowpane and one door all valued at Kshs. 5000/= the property of David Maina.
2. The applicant pleaded guilty to the offence before Hon. C. Kesse on 15th April, 2024 and as a consequence, he was convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to 3 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) and conjunctively read with Article 50(6)(a) &(b) of the Constitution.
4. The applicant seeks a sentence review based on the sentence review report on record. The report is favorable. It is reported that during the period the applicant has been in custody he has been able to gain some farming skills. The report indicated that the applicant has expressed remorse over the offence. The officer recommended that the applicant is suitable to be given a chance to serve a non-custodial sentence and to this end it was proposed that he performs community service at Langas police station for the remaining period of three weeks.
5. Before imposing a non-custodial sentence, the court should consider the gravity of the offence, criminal history of the offender, character of the offender, protection of the community and the offender’s responsibilities to third parties.
6. Further to the aforementioned, the Community Service Orders Act makes it possible for courts to issue an order requiring the offender to perform community service. This option is available to court when the offender is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or imprisonment for a term exceeding three years but for which the court determines that any of that term as would be appropriate be served within the community on unpaid public works.
7. The instant offence is one I believe that can be punishable by a non-custodial sentence. A non-custodial sentence should have been considered by the sentencing court. Most importantly, I am of the considered view that in such offences, the courts ought to embrace victim-offender mediation. To this end, I believe the period served by the applicant in prison has shaped his character and he has appreciated the importance of being a law-abiding sentence.
8. Having gone through the record, and conscious of the objectives of sentencing, I am persuaded that the applicant has learned a lesson for the duration served in custody. He has a remainder of 3 weeks to completion. The sentence be and is hereby reviewed to the period already served. The applicant shall be set at liberty, unless he is otherwise lawfully held.
SIGNED, DATE AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024. …………………………………….R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE