[2008] KECA 15 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the sentence of fifteen years imprisonment for manslaughter was neither harsh nor manifestly excessive. The appellant had pleaded guilty to killing an unarmed and defenceless woman, his cousin, following a minor dispute over straying animals. The attack was deemed unwarranted and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KECA 15 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Tomno Ruto; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 184 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- PK Tunoi
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Sentencing Principles, Plea of Guilty
- 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 Tomno Ruto
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of fifteen years imprisonment for manslaughter was harsh or manifestly excessive.
- 2 Whether the trial judge exercised discretion properly in sentencing the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the sentence of fifteen years imprisonment for manslaughter was neither harsh nor manifestly excessive. The appellant had pleaded guilty to killing an unarmed and defenceless woman, his cousin, following a minor dispute over straying animals. The attack was deemed unwarranted and disproportionate to the provocation. The appellate court found no evidence that the trial judge had acted on a wrong principle or overlooked any material factor. Therefore, there was no basis for interfering with the sentence imposed by the High Court.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL APPEAL 184 OF 2006
PETER TOMNO RUTO …..………………………………. APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC ……………………………………………… RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a Sentence of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Kimaru, J.) dated 5th November, 2004
in
H.C.CR.C. NO. 36 OF 2004)
**********************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Peter Tomno Ruto, the appellant, was on 5th November, 2004 convicted by the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru, Kimaru, J. on his own plea of guilty to manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code and sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment. He appeals to this Court on sentence only on the grounds; first, that he is the sole bread winner for his family, and second; that he is ailing in goal having suffered from ulcers and TB.
On 18th February, 2004 at about 4:00 p.m. the appellant arrived home to find the deceased's goats and sheep grazing on his farm. He drove them off and went on to repair the fence through which the animals had strayed. While doing so, the deceased who was his cousin and who appeared drunk, rudely answered the appellant that there was nothing he could do to her despite what her animals had done. The deceased then moved towards her house but the appellant armed himself with a panga and hastily followed her. He caught up with her inside her house and viciously hacked her on the neck thus killing her instantly. A post mortem conducted on her body gave the cause of death as severe cervical rupture by a sharp object. The appellant was subsequently arrested by members of the public and handed over to the police.
The learned judge in the court below deemed the attack unwarranted upon an unarmed defenceless woman following a minor transgression by straying animals.
It is evident from the facts tendered before the trial court and of which facts were unequivocally admitted by the appellant that there was no reason whatsoever for him to resort to the use of a lethal weapon while he himself was not attacked nor was he in an imminent danger. Moreover, the deceased who was not armed with any object had moved away.
Taking all facts and circumstances into account we would think that the sentence herein is well merited and is neither harsh nor manifestly excessive. Moreover, this Court will not ordinarily interfere in the discretion exercised by a trial judge in the matter of sentence unless it is evident that the judge has acted upon some wrong principle, or overlooked some material factor. In the present case the learned Judge has done neither.
The appeal is dismissed.
Dated and delivered at Nakuru this 3rd day of October, 2008.
P.K. TUNOI
……………....
JUDGE OF APPEAL
S.E.O. BOSIRE
……………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
D.K.S. AGANYANYA
…………….…
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR