[2016] KEHC 2452 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty to the first count was unequivocal and properly taken, satisfying the requirements set out in Aden v Republic. The conviction and sentence of four years imprisonment on each limb of the first count were lawful and appropriate, given the appellant's age and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2452 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Kogoi alias Kei; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 15 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal partially allowed.
- Judges
- JV Juma
- Legal Topics
- House Breaking, Stealing, Handling Suspected Stolen Property, Plea of Guilty, Sentencing, Duplicitous Conviction
- 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 Kogoi alias Kei
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and properly taken.
- 2 Whether the conviction and sentence on both counts were lawful and appropriate.
- 3 Whether convicting the appellant on both house breaking and handling suspected stolen property was duplicitous.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty to the first count was unequivocal and properly taken, satisfying the requirements set out in Aden v Republic. The conviction and sentence of four years imprisonment on each limb of the first count were lawful and appropriate, given the appellant's age and the circumstances. However, the trial magistrate erred by convicting the appellant on the second count of handling suspected stolen property without inviting a specific plea or reading the relevant facts, and in any event, it was duplicitous to convict on both counts arising from the same transaction. The conviction and sentence on the second count were therefore quashed, and the...
Court Disposition
Appeal partially allowed.
Orders
- Conviction and sentence on Count No. 1 (house breaking and stealing) confirmed and upheld.
- Conviction and sentence on Count No. 2 (handling suspected stolen property) quashed and set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2015
PETER KOGOI alias KEI...............................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ................................................................. RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the Judgment of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Maralal Hon. C. N.
Ndegwa – PrincipalMagistrate delivered on the 9th December, 2014
in PMCR Case No. 875 of 2014)
JUDGMENT
The Appellant herein PETER KOGOI alias KEI has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence by the learned Principal Magistrate sitting at the Maralal Law Courts.
The appellant was charged before the lower court on a first count of HOUSE BREAKING CONTRARY TO SECTION 304(1)(b) and STEALING CONTRARY TO SECTION 279 (b) OF THE PENAL CODE. The appellant faced a second count of HANDLING SUSPECTED STOLEN PROPERTY CONTRARY TO SECTION 323 OF THE PENAL CODE.
On 8th December, 2014 when the charges were read out to the appellant he entered a plea of ‘Guilty’ to both counts. Thereafter the facts were read out to the appellant and his response was:-
“I have understood the facts. The facts are correct”
Thus the accused maintained his guilty. The trial magistrate proceeded to convict the appellant on his own plea of Guilty.
I have carefully perused the record. I am satisfied that the appellant’s plea was properly taken in line with the guidelines in the celebrated case of Aden Vs Republic. I am satisfied that the appellant made an unequivocal plea of ‘Guilty’ to Count No. 1. As such I find that his conviction on the first count was sound and I do confirm the same.
I note that the trial magistrate took the precaution of ordering an age assessment before sentencing the appellant. The age assessment report indicated that the appellant was aged 20 years. His sentence of 4 years imprisonment on each limb of the charge was both lawful and appropriate and I do uphold that sentence.
However the trial magistrate proceeded to convict the appellant on Count No. 2 without inviting him to plead specifically to that count. Neither did the court read out to the appellant the facts related specifically to this 2nd count. In any event having convicted the appellant on the first count of Burglary and theft, it was duplitious to convict him also on this 2nd count. Thus I quash the appellants conviction on Count No. 2 and set aside the sentence imposed therefore. To this extent only does the appeal succeed.
In summary the appellant’s conviction on Count No. 1 is confirmed and his sentence of 4 years imprisonment on each limb is upheld. The sentences to run concurrently from the date of first conviction in the trial court.
Dated in Nakuru this 14th day of October, 2016.
Appellant in person
Mr. Motende for State
M. Odero
Judge
14/10/2016