[2020] KEHC 8184 (KLR)
The trial court imposed a sentence of four years' imprisonment for the offence of stealing, contrary to section 275 of the Penal Code, which prescribes a maximum sentence of three years. The appellate court found that the sentence was illegal as it exceeded the statutory maximum. While the offence was aggravated by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 8184 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Richard Kelvin Wafula; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 40 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_partially_allowed
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Stealing Offences, Penal Code Interpretation
- 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
Richard Kelvin Wafula
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant exceeded the maximum prescribed by law.
- 2 Whether the appellate court should interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court imposed a sentence of four years' imprisonment for the offence of stealing, contrary to section 275 of the Penal Code, which prescribes a maximum sentence of three years. The appellate court found that the sentence was illegal as it exceeded the statutory maximum. While the offence was aggravated by the potential harm to patients, the court held that it could only interfere with the sentence to the extent of correcting its illegality. The sentence was therefore set aside and substituted with the lawful maximum of three years' imprisonment, to run from the date of the original sentence.
Court Disposition
appeal_partially_allowed
Orders
- The sentence of four years' imprisonment is set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to three years' imprisonment from the date of the original sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2019
RICHARD KELVIN WAFULA...............................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.............................................................RESPONDENT
(From the original conviction and sentence in Criminal case No.2126 of 2018 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Busia by Hon. M.A Nanzushi- Senior Resident Magistrate)
JUDGMENT
1. Richard Kelvin Wafula, the appellant herein, was convicted of an offence of stealing contrary to section 268 (1) as read with section of 275 of the Penal Code.
2. The particulars were that on the of 9th & 10th October 2018 at Busia County Referral Hospital, Renal Unit within Busia county, jointly with others already before court stole two visual patient monitors valued at Kshs. 900,000/=the property of the Government of Kenya.
3. The appellant pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to serve four years imprisonment.
4. He has appealed against the sentence.
5. The appeal was opposed by the state through Mr. Gacharia, learned counsel who however partially conceded that the sentence was more than what is prescribed.
6. This is a first appellate court. As expected, I have analyzed and evaluated afresh all the evidence adduced before the lower court and I have drawn my own conclusions while bearing in mind that I neither saw nor heard any of the witnesses. I will be guided by the celebrated case of Okeno vs. Republic [1972] EA 32.
7. In the case of Nelson vs Republic [1970] E.A. 599 the court of Appeal stated that an appellate court can only interfere with the sentence of the trial court upon being satisfied of the existence of certain circumstances. This is what the court said:
The principles upon which an appellate court will act in exercising its jurisdiction to review sentences are fairly established. The court does not alter a sentence on the mere ground that if the members of the court had been trying the appellant, they might have passed a somewhat different sentence and it will not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by a trial Judge unless as was said in James v Rex (1950), 18 EACA 147, it is evident that the Judge has acted upon some wrong principle or overlooked some material factor! To this, we would also add a third criterion, namely, that the sentence is manifestly excessive in view of the circumstances of the case. R v Shershewsity (1912) C.CA 28 T.LR 364.
In the instant case, the appellant pleaded guilty. Though he did not have any record of previous convictions, the offence was aggravated by the fact that to dismember a renal machine may spell death to patients. I will therefore only interfere in the sentence as far as its illegality is concerned.
8. Section 275 0f the Penal code provides:
Any person who steals anything capable of being stolen is guilty of the felony termed theft and is liable, unless owing to the circumstances of the theft or the nature of the thing stolen some other punishment is provided, to imprisonment for three years.
9. A sentence of four years meted to the appellant was therefore illegal. I accordingly set aside the sentence of four years and substitute it with a sentence of three years’ imprisonment to run from the date he was sentenced by the trial court. His appeal succeeds to that extent only.
DELIVERED and SIGNED at BUSIA this 20th Day of February, 2020
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE