[2019] KEHC 11224 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence imposed on the Applicant, being a fine of Kshs.500,000 or two years imprisonment for stealing by servant, was not excessive but rather lenient given the nature and gravity of the offence. The trial court had already considered the Applicant's mitigation, including his status as a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 11224 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Kiarie Gitu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 855 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Stealing by Servant, Sentencing Revision, Custodial Vs Non Custodial Sentence
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Kiarie Gitu
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the custodial sentence imposed on the Applicant for stealing by servant was excessive and should be revised to a non-custodial sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence imposed on the Applicant, being a fine of Kshs.500,000 or two years imprisonment for stealing by servant, was not excessive but rather lenient given the nature and gravity of the offence. The trial court had already considered the Applicant's mitigation, including his status as a first offender and his family circumstances. There was no justification to interfere with the sentence as it was within the law and appropriate for the offence committed. The application for revision therefore lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.855 OF 2018
PETER KIARIE GITU.....................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC....................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, Peter Kiarie Gitu was convicted of the offence of stealing by servant contrary Section 281 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that on diverse dates between 21st July 2014 and 28th August 2014 at Jamii Bora Bank in Nairobi, the Applicant, being a servant of the said bank, stole Kshs.1,368,515/- the property of the said bank that came in possession of the Applicant by virtue of his employment. The Applicant was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs.500,000/- or to serve two (2) years imprisonment. The Applicant is serving the default custodial sentence. The sentence was meted out on 29th June 2018.
The Applicant has applied to this court to have the sentence revised so that he can serve a non-custodial sentence. The Applicant contends that the custodial sentence imposed upon him was punitive and excessive in the circumstances. He stated that he had a young family with school going children who are suffering while he is in incarceration. He was the sole breadwinner of his family. Ms. Sigei for the State opposed the application. She submitted that although the Applicant was a first offender, the sentence was extremely lenient taking into account the offence that he had committed. He urged the court to disallow the application.
This court has carefully considered the facts of this case. The Applicant is pleading for the revision of his sentence from a custodial one to a non-custodial one. This court has considered the offence that the Applicant committed. It has also considered the fact that the Applicant’s mitigation was considered by the trial court. This court agrees with the prosecution that taking into consideration the nature of the offence that the Applicant committed, the sentence that was imposed upon him fitted the crime. In fact, it bordered on the lenient side. This court will not therefore interfere with the sentence.
In the premises therefore, the application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019
L. KIMARU
JUDGE