[2005] KEHC 1312 (KLR)
The court found that, although the appellant pleaded guilty to the charges of failing to take precautions for the safe custody of a firearm and ammunition, there were significant mitigating factors, including his status as the sole breadwinner, his young family, and his wife's illness. The court exercised its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1312 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Paul Kiplimo Sang; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 14 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- sentence reduced; appellant to be released unless otherwise lawfully held
- Legal Topics
- Firearm Offences, Sentencing, Plea of Guilty
- 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
Paul Kiplimo Sang
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant for failing to take precautions for safe custody of a firearm and ammunition was appropriate.
- 2 Whether the appellant should have been given the option of a fine instead of a custodial sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although the appellant pleaded guilty to the charges of failing to take precautions for the safe custody of a firearm and ammunition, there were significant mitigating factors, including his status as the sole breadwinner, his young family, and his wife's illness. The court exercised its discretion on humanitarian grounds to reduce the sentence from one year imprisonment to the period already served, holding that further incarceration was not warranted in the circumstances. The court ordered the appellant's immediate release unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
sentence reduced; appellant to be released unless otherwise lawfully held
Orders
- The sentence of 1 year imprisonment is reduced to the period already served for each charge.
- The appellant should be released forthwith unless lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Criminal Appeal 14 of 2005
PAUL KIPLIMO SANG…………………………….…………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………………..………………..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The Appellant has appealed against the original conviction and sentence passed against him in Nakuru Chief Magistrate’s Criminal Case No.3591 of 2004. In that case, the Appellant was charged for Failing to take precautions to ensure the safe custody of a Firearm, contrary to Section 18(3) as read with Section 18(4) of the Firearm Act, Cap.114, Laws of Kenya.The second charge against the Appellant is the offence of Failing to take precautions to ensure the safe custody of ammunition contrary to Section 18(3) as read with Section 18(4) of the Firearm Act, Laws of Kenya.
The facts of the prosecution case as stated in the charge sheet for the first Count are as follows:-
“On unknown date between 4th August, 2004 and 26th August, 2004, at Nakuru Township in Nakuru District within Rift Valley Province failed to take precaution to ensure safe custody of a Firearm Serial No. PA 10596 make Tolkarer Pistol which was lawfully issued to him.”
The facts of the prosecution case as stated in the charge sheet for the second Count are as follows:-
“On unknown date between 4th August, 2004 and 26th August, 2004, in Nakuru Township in Nakuru District within Rift Valley Province failed to take precautions to ensure safe custody of eight(8) rounds of ammunitions of 7. 63mm calibre which were lawfully issued to him.”
During the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant recalled that he had pleaded ”Guilty” to the charges. Apart from the above, the Appellant informed the Court that he has ulcers and hence cannot stand the food in prison. In addition to the above, the Appellant also informed the Court that he is the sole bread winner in a family that is tender and also needs him. That apart, the Appellant also informed the Court that his father passed away.
He lamented that the learned Magistrate never gave him an option of a fine. On the other hand, Mr. Koech, Senior State Counsel submitted that since the Appellant never challenged the conviction, he left the issue of sentence to the Court.
This Court has carefully perused what has been stated by the Appellant and the reply by Mr. Koech on behalf of the State. Apparently, the Appellant has a young family and a sick wife. Purely on humanitarian grounds, the sentence of 1 year imprisonment is reduced to the period already served for each charge.
The Appellant should be set released forthwith unless lawfully held.
Those are the orders of this Court.
MUGA APONDI
JUDGE
Judgment read signed and delivered in open Court In the presence of Mr. Gumo and the Appellant.
MUGA APONDI JUDGE 19th October, 2005