[2014] KEHC 8470 (KLR)
The court found that the Applicant pleaded guilty, saving judicial time, and had already served eighteen months imprisonment. Considering the nature of the offences and the Applicant's remorse, the court held that the period already served was sufficient punishment. The court also agreed with the State that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 8470 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Richard Omondi Okoth; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 43 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application for revision allowed; sentences commuted to period served; applicant released unless otherwise lawfully held
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Plea of Guilty, Concurrent Sentences, Revision of 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
Richard Omondi Okoth
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the Applicant was harsh and excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively.
- 3 Whether the period already served by the Applicant was sufficient punishment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Applicant pleaded guilty, saving judicial time, and had already served eighteen months imprisonment. Considering the nature of the offences and the Applicant's remorse, the court held that the period already served was sufficient punishment. The court also agreed with the State that the sentences should have run concurrently. Consequently, the sentences were commuted to the period already served, and the Applicant was ordered to be released unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
application for revision allowed; sentences commuted to period served; applicant released unless otherwise lawfully held
Orders
- The sentences imposed on the Applicant are commuted to the period already served.
- The Applicant is ordered set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.43 OF 2013
RICHARD OMONDI OKOTH……..………………………………………………..APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………….………………………………………………………......RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, Richard Omondi Okoth was charged with two counts of stealing contrary to Section 268(1) as read with Section 275 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that on 21st May 2012 at Orange Villas Limited Hurlingham and at National Bank of Kenya, Kenyatta Avenue Branch, Nairobi, the Applicant respectively stole a Prime Bank Cheque leaf No.000029 and Kshs.96,000/-, the property of Orange Villas Limited. The Applicant was further charged with forgery contrary to Section 345 as read with Section 349 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that on 21st May 2012, jointly with others not before court, the Applicant forged a Prime Bank Cheque No.000029 of Kshs.96,000/- purporting it to be a genuine and valid cheque issued by Orange Villas Limited, a fact the Applicant knew was false. When the Applicant was arraigned before the trial court, he pleaded guilty to the charge. He was convicted on his own plea of guilty. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs.30,000/- or serve six (6) months imprisonment in respect of the first count, a fine of Kshs.80,000 or in default eighteen (18)months imprisonment in respect of the second count and a fine of Kshs.288,000/- or two (2) years imprisonment in respect of the third count.
The Applicant has moved this court by way of revision seeking to have the sentences that was imposed on him either reviewed or varied. The Applicant is of the view that the sentence that was imposed on him was harsh and excessive in the circumstances. He deponed that the cumulative sentence of four (4) years imprisonment that he was sentenced to serve was not commensurate with the offences that he had committed. At the hearing of the application, the Applicant pleaded with the court to sentence him to serve a non-custodial sentence instead of the term of imprisonment that he was ordered to serve. Ms. Aluda for the State did not oppose the application. She conceded that the sentences imposed ought to run concurrently and not consecutively. The Applicant had already served a term of eighteen (18) months imprisoned.
This court has carefully considered the facts of this case. The Applicant pleaded guilty to the charges that were brought against him. He saved the court’s time. It was apparent to the court the period of eighteen months imprisonment that the Applicant has served is sufficient punishment taking into consideration the nature of the charges that he faced. He is remorseful and has learnt his lesson. He pleads for this court’s leniency. The State does not oppose for the sentences that were imposed on the Applicant to be consolidated and be ordered to run concurrently instead of consecutively. This court is however of the view that the period that the Applicant has served is sufficient. The sentences imposed on the Applicant are commuted to the period already served.
The Applicant is ordered set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014
L. KIMARU
JUDGE