[2009] KEHC 167 (KLR)
The court found that although the sentences imposed for each count were within the law and not excessive, the trial court erred by ordering the sentences to run consecutively rather than concurrently, given that some offences were committed in the same transaction and close temporal proximity. The appellant's status...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 167 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Rajabu Kiplimo Wananda; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 61 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Stealing Offences, Burglary, First Offender Consideration
- 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
Rajabu Kiplimo Wananda
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of six years imposed on the appellant was excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred in ordering the sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently.
- 3 Whether the appellant's status as a first offender and a student warranted reduction of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the sentences imposed for each count were within the law and not excessive, the trial court erred by ordering the sentences to run consecutively rather than concurrently, given that some offences were committed in the same transaction and close temporal proximity. The appellant's status as a first offender and student was noted but did not render the sentences unlawful or excessive. The only error was the consecutive running of sentences, which the appellate court corrected by ordering that all sentences run concurrently. As the appellant had already served the full term by the date of judgment, the court ordered his immediate release unless otherwise...
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part
Orders
- Sentences of two years imprisonment in all counts to run concurrently.
- Appellant to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
Criminal Appeal 61 of 2006
(Appeal arising from KMLL CR. NO. 499 of 2006)
RAJABU KIPLIMO WANANDA……………………………..APPELLANT
~VRS~
REPUBLIC…………………………………………………….RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The Appellant Rajab Kiplimo Wananda was convicted on his own plea of guilty of three counts by Kimilili Resident Magistrate Court on the 4th July, 2006. Counts I and II were offences of stealing contrary to section 275 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to serve two (2) years imprisonment on each count. In count III, the charge was of burglary and stealing contrary to sections 304 (2) and section 279 (b) of the Penal Code and was sentenced to two years imprisonment. The sentences were to run consecutively. The Appellant only appeals against sentence in his three grounds:
1)That the sentence of six years is excessive;
2)That I am still schooling;
3)That it is my first offence.
He urges this court to reduce the sentence relying wholly on the said grounds.
The state opposed the appeal with Mr. Onderi, Senior Principal State Counsel submitting that the sentences of two years imprisonment for each count were not excessive. In count III, there are two limbs and accused was given a blanket sentence of two years. The court ought to have sentenced him on each limb. The first limb of burglary carries a maximum sentence of seven (7) years while stealing from a dwelling house carries fourteen (14) years maximum. It is the duty of this court to rectify such mistakes. I therefore sentence the accused to serve two years on each limb.
In count I and II, the offences were committed on the same date, that is the 2nd of July 2006 the same time being 11. 30 p.m. In the third count the offences were committed on 3rd July 2006 at 1. 30 a.m. Property stolen in count I and II was valued at Ksh.940/= and Ksh.450/= respectively. In count III, the value was Ksh.500/=. Although the accused was a first offender, the sentences imposed are within the law and not excessive in the circumstances. The only mistake the court made was to order that the sentences run consecutively. I hereby order that the sentences of two years imprisonment in all the counts run concurrently. The accused has fully served the said sentences since 4th July 2006 when he was sentenced. I hereby order that the Appellant be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
F. N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
Dated, Delivered and Signed at Bungoma this 26th day of November, 2009 in the presence of the appellant and the state counsel Mr. Onderi.