[2006] KEHC 369 (KLR)
The court found that the conviction was proper as the evidence from the complainants and corroborating witnesses was overwhelming and credible. However, the sentence of four years imprisonment on each count was deemed harsh and excessive given the appellant's status as a first offender, the relatively small amounts...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 369 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Ndele Okoro; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 81 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Stealing From Person, 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 Ndele Okoro
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for stealing from the person was supported by the evidence.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the conviction was proper as the evidence from the complainants and corroborating witnesses was overwhelming and credible. However, the sentence of four years imprisonment on each count was deemed harsh and excessive given the appellant's status as a first offender, the relatively small amounts stolen, and the period already spent in remand. The court substituted the sentence with the period already served, ordering the appellant's immediate release unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part
Orders
- Conviction upheld.
- Sentence of four years imprisonment on each count set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII
Criminal Appeal 81 of 2005
PETER NDELE OKORO ……………….…………………… APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …………………………………..…………….. RESPONDENT
(From original conviction and sentence of the SRM’s court Migori in criminal case No.193 of 2005)
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted on two counts of stealing from the person contrary to s.27(a) Penal Code by Migori Principal Magistrate. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on both counts to run concurrently.
Particulars were that on 14th February 2005 at Migori Law Courts he stole sh.200/- property of Maynard Okello Ochiege from the person of the said Ondiege. In count 2 it was alleged that on the same day and place he stole shs.72/- from Martine Onyango.
The appellant was in remand for another offence and had been taken to Migori court. He was placed in court cells. The two complainants were also taken to the cells the first for a traffic offence and the second for a changaa offence. The appellant dipped his hands into the pocket of the 1st complainant and took shs.200/-. The first appellant was scared and did not react. Appellant went to the second complainant and removed sh.72/-.
2nd complainant started to struggle with him. Police officer who noticed the commotion intervened and arrested the appellant. He was charged.
I concur with the State Counsel that the evidence was overwhelming and the conviction was proper. PW1 & 2 told court how the accused stole from them. It seems he had been in remand for a long time and had became hardened.
He stole the money openly and bit PW2 when he dared to struggle with him. He was arrested with some of the stolen money. PW3 and 4 who too were inmates in the same cells corroborated the evidence of PW1 & 2.
I therefore find the conviction was proper and I uphold it.
As for sentence the appellant was jailed for four years in each count. I think the court went abit overboard possibly because the offence was committed within its precincts. Appellant was treated as a first offender. He told court that he had been in remand for 11/2 years. The amount of money stolen was not much. The sentence of 4 years imprisonment on each count was no doubt harsh and excessive in the circumstances. I therefore set the same aside and substitute with sentence of the period already served which is one year and 4 months. Appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise legally held.
Dated this 13th June 2006.
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE
Cc – Mobisa
Mr. Kemo for State
Appellant present