[2021] KEHC 1499 (KLR)
The court held that, according to Section 37 of the Penal Code, imprisonment terms imposed in default of payment of fines must run consecutively and not concurrently. The trial magistrate exercised discretion in imposing lenient sentences and provided the appellant with the option to pay fines. The sentences were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 1499 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Patrick Mugambi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 62 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Default of Fine Imprisonment
- 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
Patrick Mugambi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the appellant should have run concurrently or consecutively.
- 2 Whether the trial court's sentence was reasonable and fair.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, according to Section 37 of the Penal Code, imprisonment terms imposed in default of payment of fines must run consecutively and not concurrently. The trial magistrate exercised discretion in imposing lenient sentences and provided the appellant with the option to pay fines. The sentences were found to be reasonable and fair, and there was no basis for the appellate court to interfere with the trial court's decision. Consequently, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
(CORAM: CHERERE -J)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.NO.62 OF 2020
BETWEEN
PATRICK MUGAMBI......................................................APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC.....................................................................RESPONDENT
(Appeal against sentence in Tigania Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 467 of 2019 by Hon. P.M.Wechuli (SRM) on 24. 08. 2020)
JUDGMENT
1. Accused were convicted on their own plea on one count of cutting down cultivated produce contrary to section 334 (a) of the Penal Code(the Act)and the second count of threatening to kill contrary to section 223(1) of the same Act.
2. Appellants was fined Kshs. 50,000/- in default 8 months’ imprisonment in the first count and Kshs. 50,000/- in default one-year imprisonment.
3. Appellants appeal on sentence is opposed by the state on the ground that the sentences ought to have run concurrently.
4. Section 28 of the Penal Code gives the general principles on fines that:
(1) Where a fine is imposed under any law, then in the absence of express provisions relating to the fine in that law the following provisions shall apply—
(c)in the case of an offence punishable with imprisonment as well as a fine in which the offender is sentenced to a fine with or without imprisonment, and in every case of an offence punishable with fine only in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, the court passing sentence may, in its discretion—
i. direct by its sentence that in default of payment of the fine the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term, which imprisonment shall be in addition to any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of sentence; and also
5. Section 37 of the Act on the other hand provides that:
Where a person after conviction for an offence is convicted of another offence, either before sentence is passed upon him under the first conviction or before the expiration of that sentence, any sentence, other than a sentence of death, which is passed upon him under the subsequent conviction shall be executed after the expiration of the former sentence, unless the court directs that it shall be executed concurrently with the former sentence or any part thereof:
“Provided that it shall not be lawful for a court to direct that a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine shall be executed concurrently with a former sentence under subparagraph (i) of paragraph(s) of sub-section (1) of section 28 or of any part thereof”.
6. My understanding of this provision is that imprisonment terms imposed in default of payment of the fines ought to run consecutively and not concurrently.
7. Appellant was liable to imprisonment for fourteen years in the 1st count and ten years in the second count. The magistrate in his discretion imposed a lenient sentence and even gave the Appellant an option to pay fines. The sentences passed by the trial court are in my humble view reasonable and fair and do not merit this court’s interference.
8. Accordingly, and for the reasons set out hereinabove, I find that this appeal has no merit and it is thus dismissed.
DATED AT MERU THIS 02ND DAY DECEMBER 2021
T. W. CHERERE
JUDGE
Court Assistant - Mr. Kinoti
Appellant - Present
For the State - Ms. Mwaniki