[2023] KEHC 913 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's sentence of three years imprisonment for manslaughter was not shown to be illegal, improper, or excessive. The trial court had considered all relevant factors, including the applicant's personal circumstances, mitigation, aggravating factors, and the nature and seriousness of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 913 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Hellen Mutonyi Miti
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E025 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Sentencing Principles, Plea Bargaining, Criminal Revision, Excessive Sentence
- 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
Republic
Respondent
Hellen Mutonyi Miti
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of three years imprisonment for manslaughter was excessive and punitive given the applicant's personal circumstances.
- 2 Whether there were compelling circumstances to warrant revision of the sentence under Article 50(6) of the Constitution and section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's sentence of three years imprisonment for manslaughter was not shown to be illegal, improper, or excessive. The trial court had considered all relevant factors, including the applicant's personal circumstances, mitigation, aggravating factors, and the nature and seriousness of the offence. There were no compelling circumstances under Article 50(6) of the Constitution or section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code to warrant revision of the sentence. The court further held that the appropriate forum for challenging the sentence was the Court of Appeal, not by way of revision in the High Court. Accordingly, the application for revision was dismissed in its...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed in its entirety.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
Republic v Miti (Criminal Revision E025 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 913 (KLR) (10 February 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 913 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Criminal Revision E025 of 2022
RN Nyakundi, J
February 10, 2023
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Hellen Mutonyi Miti
Accused
Ruling
1. Hellen Mutonyi was initially charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence being that on the 24th day of October, 2019 at Kimumu Estate, within Moiben Sub County, Uasin Gishu County murdered Simon Makomere She pleaded not guilty to the charge only later to enter into a plea agreement negotiation under section 137(A) (B) ( C) ( D) (G) (H) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This resulted in the prosecution reviewing the evidence by filing a new information for the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 and 205 of the Penal Code.
2. The applicant entered a plea of guilty for that less offence of manslaughter from which a conviction order carried the day. In the final submissions both counsels ventilated the issue on appropriate sentence in the circumstances of the case. The trial court considered the personal circumstances of the applicant, mitigation and aggravating factors as well as the nature, seriousness, and impact of the offence to the victim.
3. It is thus clear from the record that the applicant was sentenced to three (3) years imprisonment. This is same sentence has become the subject matter of revision on grounds that it is punitive and excessive given the personal circumstances of the applicant. It is significant to note that under article 50 (6) (A) &(B) of the Constitution there are no compelling circumstances to review the sentence imposed by the trial court. I further all the view that the proper forum to challenge that decision on sentence should have been the court of Appeal. With reference to section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code I find no merit in the application for a review of sentence. It is therefore dismissed in its entirety.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT ELDORET ON THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023. ................................................R. NYAKUNDIJUDGEIn the Presence of the ApplicantMugun for the State