[2012] KEHC 786 (KLR)
The court found that although the appellant was properly convicted on his own plea of guilty for two counts of stock theft, the trial court erred in ordering the sentences to run consecutively. The offences were committed on the same day, and established judicial practice dictates that sentences in such...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 786 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Mwema Munyao; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 644 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed_in_part
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Stock Theft, Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Sentences
- 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 Mwema Munyao
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in ordering the sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently for offences committed on the same day.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the appellant was properly convicted on his own plea of guilty for two counts of stock theft, the trial court erred in ordering the sentences to run consecutively. The offences were committed on the same day, and established judicial practice dictates that sentences in such circumstances should run concurrently. The court therefore allowed the appeal to the extent of ordering the sentences to run concurrently, while maintaining the five-year term for each count. The court also noted that the previous conviction for malicious damage to property was not relevant to the current offences and should not have influenced the sentencing.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed_in_part
Orders
- The appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentences of 5 years imprisonment on each count shall run concurrently.
- The conviction and sentence of 5 years imprisonment for each count are maintained.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Criminal Appeal 644 of 2010 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
PETER MWEMA MUNYAO ……………………………………………. APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………………………………………………….......RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant was charged with two counts of stealing stock contrary to Section 278 of the Penal Code. The record shows that he pleaded guilty to both counts and thereafter the facts were stated by the prosecution. He admitted the facts as correct upon which he was convicted on his own plea of guilty. He had one previous conviction of malicious damage to property in which he was fined Kshs. 50, 000/= in default to serve 6 months imprisonment. He confirmed the said previous conviction.
In mitigation he said he got drunk and sold the cows and therefore pleaded for leniency.The previous conviction is not relevant to the two counts upon which the appellant was convicted. That notwithstanding, the appellant stole a substantial number of cows the value of which was quite high. In count 1 he stole 24 heads of cattle valued at Kshs. 500,000/=. While in count II he stole 26 heads of cattle valued at Kshs. 480,000/=. Only 20 of the total number of cattle stolen were recovered.
The penalty provided for this offence is imprisonment not exceeding 14 years. The appellant was sentenced 5 years imprisonment on each count which were ordered to run consecutively.
The offences were committed on the same day and the practice is that under such circumstances, the jail terms should be ordered to run concurrently. Accordingly, I allow the appeal by maintaining the sentence of 5 years imprisonment for each count, but ordering that the sentences should run concurrently and not consecutively.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 27th day of November, 2012.
A.MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE