[1983] KECA 93 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the sentence of 3.5 years imprisonment for manslaughter, imposed after the appellant pleaded guilty, was legal and appropriate. The court found no merit in the appellant's new claim of self-defence, considering it an afterthought unsupported by the evidence. The court also noted that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1983] KECA 93 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Raphael Omolo Arura; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 39 of 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- DC Porter, AA Kneller
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Sentencing, Plea of Guilty, Provocation, Self Defence, Remand Period
- 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
Raphael Omolo Arura
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 3.5 years imprisonment for manslaughter was legal and appropriate.
- 2 Whether the appellant's claim of self-defence warranted interference with the sentence.
- 3 Whether the appellant's personal circumstances and plea of guilty justified a more lenient sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the sentence of 3.5 years imprisonment for manslaughter, imposed after the appellant pleaded guilty, was legal and appropriate. The court found no merit in the appellant's new claim of self-defence, considering it an afterthought unsupported by the evidence. The court also noted that the trial judge had already considered all mitigating factors, including the appellant's lack of previous convictions, his family circumstances, his plea of guilty, the period spent in remand, and the alleged provocation. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and there was no basis for interference. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentence of 3.5 years imprisonment is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU
(Coram: Porter & Kneller, JJ.A & Chesoni, Ag. J.A)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 39 OF 1983
BETWEEN
RAPHAEL OMOLO…………………………………………………….APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC …………………………...………………………………RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a sentence of the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu (Schoffield J) dated in Criminal Appeal No 8 of 1983)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Raphael Omolo Arura, the appellant, aged 31, or so, and formerly a contract sugar-cane cutter at Chemelil, is aggrieved by the sentence of 31/2 years imprisonment passed upon him by the High Court (Schofield, J) in Kisumu on March 23, 1983 when he was convicted on his own plea of guilty to manslaughter.
He unlawfully killed Johannes Suba Ondiek (Ondiek), aged about 35, on June 18, 1982 near Mariwa Village in Kochogo sub-location, South East Kano Location in the Kisumu District. Ondiek herded his cattle off to some pasture some time that day and at dusk the cattle trailed back alone. A search party did not find him that night. A neighbour discovered his corpse at 8. 00 the next morning in a pool of blood in a field.
His left ear had been cut off and the left side of his skull and brain were crushed which led to internal bleeding in the brain, and heart failure. The police began their investigations and certain information led them to look for the appellant because he had been drinking changaa with Ondiek shortly before he was killed
and the appellant admits this is so. The appellant could not be found in the area but a week later he turned up of his own accord to Ahero Police Station and confessed he had killed Ondiek so he was arrested and put in the cells. Twenty-four hours later I.P Moses Mulwa told him he had reason to believe the appellant was connected with this homicide and cautioned him in appropriate words to which the appellant chose to reply. He admitted he struck Ondiek with a club until he died at about 9 pm on June 18. This was for the return of his 30- acred farm and Kshs 100 in cash to help him escape after the event which someone called James Maina paid him and who was the man who had evicted him ten years before from his plot. This James Maina, the appellant told I.P Mulwa, was the brother of Ondiek.
The advocate for the appellant submitted the appellant's reply to this inquiry and caution was bogus and it seems so to this court; the injuries of the deceased are not consistent with his having been attacked with only a club.
He went on, however, to ask the judge to inflict a lenient sentence because the appellant was married and had children and they all depended on him, he had pleaded guilty, he had no previous conviction, he had been in remand 9 months and had been sorely provoked over the years by the contrast between his poverty and the riches of Ondiek and, more immediately by Ondiek's verbal abuse when they were together on June 18. All this was considered by the learned Judge before he selected the sentenced he imposed.
The memoranda of appeal have not added anything to all this save that he now claims he acted in self-defence, which is an after-thought and untrue and that he has played an important part in fostering the sugar industry which, if true, is irrelevant.
The sentence was legal, appropriate and not manifestly excessive, so that appeal must be dismissed, which is what we now order.
Delivered at Kisumu this 20th day of June, 1983.
K.D. PORTER
Judge of Appeal
A.A. KNELLER
Judge of Appeal
Z.R. CHESONI
Ag. Judge of Appeal
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
Deputy Registrar