[2020] KEHC 9479 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate failed to expressly pronounce a sentence after the appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted of vandalism of electrical apparatus. However, the court held that this omission did not occasion a failure of justice, as the law prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 9479 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Ivita Maingi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 108 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal withdrawn; sentence regularized to ten years' imprisonment from 13th April, 2015.
- Judges
- GV Odunga
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Procedure, Vandalism of Electrical Apparatus, Minimum Sentences, 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
Peter Ivita Maingi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate properly sentenced the appellant after conviction on a plea of guilty.
- 2 Whether the omission to expressly pronounce sentence occasioned a failure of justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial magistrate failed to expressly pronounce a sentence after the appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted of vandalism of electrical apparatus. However, the court held that this omission did not occasion a failure of justice, as the law prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence for the offence. The appellant had already withdrawn the appeal, and the High Court clarified that the appellant would serve the statutory minimum of ten years' imprisonment, with the sentence to run from the date he was first taken into custody. The court relied on the relevant statutory provisions to regularize the sentence and ensure compliance with the law.
Court Disposition
Appeal withdrawn; sentence regularized to ten years' imprisonment from 13th April, 2015.
Orders
- The appellant will serve ten years' imprisonment, sentence to run from 13th April, 2015 pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
APPELLATE SIDE
(Coram: Odunga, J)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NUMBER 108 OF 2019
PETER IVITA MAINGI………..………………..……………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC….……………..………....…..………………..….RESPONDENT
(From original conviction and sentence in Mavoko Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case 227 of 2015, Hon. E. K. Too SRM on 16th July, 2015)
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC.......................................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
PETER IVITA MAINGI.........................................................................ACCUSED
JUDGEMENT
1. The appellant, Peter Ivita Maingi, was charged before Mavoko Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case 227 of 2015 with the offence of Vandalism of Electrical Apparatus Contrary to Section 64(4)(b) of the Energy Act, No. 12 of 2012.
2. On 16th July, 2015, he pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted accordingly. In what the learned trial magistrate considered as the sentencing of the appellant, it was stated as follows:
“A deterrence sentence solution. The offence attracts a minimum sentence of Kshs 5 million or in default 10 years imprisonment. Right of appeal 14 days.”
3. Section 64(4) of the Energy Act, No. 12 of 2012 provides as follows:
(4) A person who wilfully or with intent to interfere with the management or operation of the apparatus of a licensee—
(a) extinguishes or causes to be extinguished, any public lamps;
(b) vandalizes or damages any works of or under the control of a licensee;
(c) steals or, with intent to steal, break, throws down or damages any works of or under the control of a licensee; or
(d) steals, illegally trades or improperly uses any of the electrical energy supplied by a licensee, commits an offence, and shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine of not less than five million shillings or to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, or both.
4. Clearly, the learned trial magistrate failed to sentence the appellant. The only thing the court did was to set out the sentence as prescribed by the law and nothing else. However, section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides as follows:
Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account of an error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during the trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, unless the error, omission or irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice
5. It is therefore my view that the Appellant quite properly withdrew this appeal. For avoidance of doubt the Appellant will serve 10 years imprisonment, the sentence to run from 13th April, 2015 pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
6. It is so ordered.
Judgement read, signed and delivered in open court at Machakos this 12th day of March, 2020.
G V ODUNGA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
The Appellant in person
Miss Mogoi for the Respondent
CA Geoffrey