[2018] KEHC 6569 (KLR)
The court found that although the appellant pleaded guilty and thus deserved some leniency, he was not a first offender, having been convicted of a similar offence less than a year prior. The trial court considered the prevalence of the offence, the appellant's lack of remorse, and the need for rehabilitation....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 6569 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Njuguna Wambui; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyahururu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 190 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_partially_allowed
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Repeat Offender, Plea of Guilty, Mitigation, House Breaking, Handling Stolen Property
- 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 Njuguna Wambui
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of five years imprisonment imposed on the appellant was harsh and excessive.
- 2 Whether the trial court properly considered the appellant's mitigation and previous conviction in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the appellant pleaded guilty and thus deserved some leniency, he was not a first offender, having been convicted of a similar offence less than a year prior. The trial court considered the prevalence of the offence, the appellant's lack of remorse, and the need for rehabilitation. However, the appellate court noted that the trial court failed to pronounce sentence on each limb of the charge. Exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the court reduced the sentence from five years to three and a half years on each limb, to run concurrently, finding this sufficient for rehabilitation and deterrence given the circumstances. The appeal was allowed to the extent of...
Court Disposition
appeal_partially_allowed
Orders
- The sentence of five years imprisonment is set aside and substituted with three and a half years imprisonment on each limb of the charge.
- The sentences shall run concurrently.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYAHURURU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.190 OF 2017
(Appeal Originating from Nyahururu CM’s Court Cr.No.1376 of 2017 by: Hon. O. Momanyi – S.R.M.)
PETER NJUGUNA WAMBUI...................................APPELLANT
-V E R S U S -
REPUBLIC...........................................................RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The appellant,Peter Njuguna Wambuiwas on30/8/2017 convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to serve five (5) years imprisonment for the offence of house breaking and stealing contrary to Section 304(1)(b) as read with Section 279(b) of the Penal Code.
The allegation against the appellant was that on 20/8/2017, at Gituamba area of Subukia Sub County, broke and entered the dwelling house of Peninah Wambui Ikenye with intent to steal and stole from therein one black solar Chloride battery, a mattress, one blanket and 3 chicken all valued at Kshs.13,000/=.
In the alternative, the appellant faced a charge of handling stolen property contrary to Section 322(1) of the Penal Code.
The particulars of the charge are that on 20/8/2017 at Subukia Trading Centre, otherwise than in the cause of stealing, dishonestly retained one black chloride Solar battery, two chicken and one mattress all valued at Kshs.11,500/= knowingly or having reasons to believe them to be stolen, the property of Peninah Wambui Ikenye.
When he appeared before the court on 21/8/2017, the appellant pleaded guilty and the matter was deferred to 30/8/2017 for plea and facts. On 30/8/2017, he admitted the offence, facts were read to him which he confirmed to be true and he was convicted accordingly.
The appellant is not contesting the conviction but the sentence which he claims to be harsh and excessive; that he has sisters whom he assist and he has no parents and therefore pleads for leniency.
The appeal was opposed by learned counsel for the State Ms. Rugut, who submitted that after conviction, the appellant was asked to give his mitigation and he did not say anything and the trial court noted that he was not remorseful; that he was liable to be sentenced to 7 years imprisonment upon conviction, but the court only handed him 5 years imprisonment and the appeal should be dismissed.
In reply the appellant stated that when he got in the court, he got confused and did not ask for leniency.
The appellant pleaded guilty to the offence and therefore did not waste the court’s time.
What the prosecution counsel did not tell the court is that the appellant was not a first offender but had been convicted of a similar offence in Nyahururu Criminal Case No.1144/2016 where on 30/5/2016, he was fined Kshs.18,000/= in default 5 months imprisonment. He was therefore not a first offender.
It is obvious that the appellant had not reformed following the earlier sentence because he committed this offence within a year of serving the earlier sentence.
When sentencing the trial court had taken into account the fact that the offence was rampant in the jurisdiction, that the appellant was not remorseful and he needed to be removed from society for some time in order to be rehabilitated. Although the appellant claims to have been confused when asked to mitigate, the fact that he had committed a similar offence within such a short period calls for a deterrent sentence.
As observed by counsel, the maximum sentence under the provisions of the law is 7 years. The appellant was handed 5 years. I note that the court did not pronounce sentence on each limb. I hereby correct that error. Because accused pleaded guilty, I will reduce the sentence of 5 years to 3½ years on each limb within which he should be reformed. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds to the extent that the appellant will serve 3½ years imprisonment on each limb and the sentences will run concurrently. No findings on the alternative charge. It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at NYAHURURU this 17thday ofApril,2018.
..............................
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
PRESENT:
Ms. Rugut - Prosecution Counsel
Tirian - Court Assistant
Appellant - present