[2003] KEHC 161 (KLR)
The court found that all seven counts of handling stolen goods arose from goods found in a single house at the same time, with no exceptional circumstances to justify consecutive sentences. The trial court's order for consecutive sentences was punitive, excessive, and harsh. The proper approach, supported by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] KEHC 161 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Mutera Kuria; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 365 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Sentences, Handling Stolen Goods
- 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 Mutera Kuria
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in ordering the sentences for handling stolen goods to run consecutively instead of concurrently.
- 2 Whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying consecutive sentences.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that all seven counts of handling stolen goods arose from goods found in a single house at the same time, with no exceptional circumstances to justify consecutive sentences. The trial court's order for consecutive sentences was punitive, excessive, and harsh. The proper approach, supported by precedent, is to order the sentences to run concurrently when offences are committed in the same transaction. The appeal against sentence was therefore allowed, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- The lower court's order for consecutive sentences is set aside.
- Each of the sentences shall run concurrently with each other.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
10 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAKURUCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.365 OF 2000 (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.888/2000 of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at MOLO –C.M.A. ONGONDO(D.M.II) PROF.
PETER MUTERA KURIA……………………………APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC………………………………………….RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is against sentence only. The Appellant was convicted of 7 counts of handling stolen goods and sentenced to one years’s Imprisonment in each count and the sentence ordered to run consecutively. The Appellant submits that the sentences should have run concurrently.
The Learned State Counsel does not oppose the appeal on grounds that the goods that formed the basis of each count were all found in one house where the Appellant led the police. In the persuasive authority of Ondieki –v- Rep 1981 KLR 430, 444 it was held on:-
“The practice is that where someone commits more than one offence at the same time and in the same transaction, save in very exceptional circumstances, to impose concurrent sentences. There are no exceptional circumstances here.”
The Appellant was convicted of handling stolen goods recovered from a house where the Appellant led the police. The Appellant was therefore found guilty of handling goods in the seven counts, found in his possession at one go. The offences can be said to have been committed in the same transaction.
There were no exceptional circumstances in this case that could warrant the court to order for the sentences to run consecutively. I agree with the Learned Counsel that the order was punitive. The sentence was clearly excessive and harsh. I will allow the Appellant’s appeal against sentence by removing the lower court’s orders and directing that each of the sentences should run concurrently with each other.
Orders accordingly. Dated and delivered at Nakuru this 11th day of March, 2003. JESSIE LESIIT JUDGE