[2005] KEHC 1344 (KLR)
The court found that the three-year custodial sentence imposed on the appellant, who pleaded guilty to assault causing actual bodily harm against his father, was harsh and excessive given the minor nature of the injuries (soft tissue injuries), the familial relationship between the parties, the appellant's remorse,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1344 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Njenga Muthumbi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 68 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Legal Topics
- Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm, Sentencing Principles, Plea of Guilty, Mitigation, Remorse and Rehabilitation
- 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 Njenga Muthumbi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the three-year custodial sentence for assault causing actual bodily harm was harsh and excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the period already served by the appellant warranted commutation of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the three-year custodial sentence imposed on the appellant, who pleaded guilty to assault causing actual bodily harm against his father, was harsh and excessive given the minor nature of the injuries (soft tissue injuries), the familial relationship between the parties, the appellant's remorse, and the fact that he had already served approximately twenty months in custody. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the original sentence and substitute it with a sentence commuted to the period already served, ordering the appellant's immediate release unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is allowed.
- The custodial sentence of three years imprisonment is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL APPEAL 68 OF 2004 (From original conviction and sentence of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Nyahururu in Criminal Case No. 328 of 2004 – K. A. Owour)
PETER NJENGA MUTHUMBI……......…………………………..……APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………...……………………………….RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant, Peter Njenga Muthumbi, was charged with the offence of assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to Section 251 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that on the 17th of January 2004 at Sipili Farm, Laikipia District, the appellant unlawfully assaulted Muthumbi Kungu thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm. When the appellant was arraigned before the trial magistrate’s court, he pleaded guilty to the charge. He was convicted on his own plea of guilty and was sentenced to serve three years imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the custodial sentence imposed, the appellant appealed to this court against the said sentence.
At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant submitted that he had been sufficiently punished for the offence which he pleaded guilty to. He stated that he regretted committing the offence. He submitted that he was now reformed and was pleading for the leniency of the court. He undertook not to be a repeat offender. Mr Koech, Learned State Counsel left the issue as to sentence to the court.
I have re-evaluated the facts of this case and considered the submission made by the appellant. The appellant does not deny that he assaulted the complainant (who is his father) and caused him injuries on his face, leg and chest. I have perused the P3 and note that the injuries sustained by the complainant were not serious. To borrow a terminology from the law of negligence, the complainant sustained soft tissue injuries, which I presume must have healed a few days after the said assault. The appellant has been in lawful custody since the 22nd of January 2004 when he was first arraigned before the trial magistrate’s court. Although he was initially released on bond, he was unable to provide the necessary sureties and therefore when he was sentenced on the 4th of March 2004, he had already spent about one and a half months in lawful custody. In total, the appellant has been in lawful custody for twenty months. He has told the court that he is remorseful. He regrets committing the offence. He pleads for the leniency of this court.
Having considered the facts of this case, and especially the injuries suffered by the complainant and also noting the fact that the complainant and the appellant are father and son, I find merit in the submission made by the appellant that the custodial sentence of three years imprisonment imposed on him was harsh and excessive in the circumstances. I will therefore allow the appeal against sentence. I will set aside the custodial sentence of three years imprisonment imposed and substitute it with a sentence of this court commuting the sentence of the appellant to the period already served. The appellant is therefore ordered set at liberty and released from prison forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
DATED at NAKURU this 19th day of October 2005.
L. KIMARU
JUDGE