[2018] KEHC 9830 (KLR)
The court found that the Applicant had already spent over two years in remand custody, which exceeded the cumulative sentence imposed for the three offences. The sentences passed were within the legal limits, but the time already served in custody was sufficient punishment. The court also noted that the probation...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 9830 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Robert Kiplimo Sang; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 820 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Remand Period Credit, False Pretences, Bad Cheque Offence, Document Offences
- 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
Robert Kiplimo Sang
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period spent in remand custody prior to conviction should be taken into account in sentencing the Applicant.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed exceeded the period the Applicant had already served in remand custody.
- 3 Whether the probation officer's adverse recommendation was properly considered in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Applicant had already spent over two years in remand custody, which exceeded the cumulative sentence imposed for the three offences. The sentences passed were within the legal limits, but the time already served in custody was sufficient punishment. The court also noted that the probation officer's adverse recommendation, based on the Applicant's failure to divulge the beneficiary of the goods, was not within the officer's mandate and should not have influenced the sentencing. Consequently, the Applicant was deemed to have served sufficient sentence and was ordered to be released unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The Applicant is to be forthwith set free unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 820 of 2018.
ROBERT KIPLIMO SANG........................APPLICANT.
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...............................................RESPONDENT.
RULING.
1. Robert Kiplimo Sang, hereafter the Applicant, brought the present application by way of Notice of Motion seeking to have the sentence imposed upon his conviction in Criminal Case No. 2794 of 2015 reviewed so that the period spent in custody prior to his conviction should be taken into account. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by himself in which he reiterated his grounds above further clarifying that he had been in remand custody since his arrest on 12th September, 2015 to the date of conviction, 17th July, 2018. He also deponed that he was the father of three children and their sole bread winner.
2. Ms. Akunja for the Respondent did not oppose the application. She however pointed out that the pre-bail report that was lodged in court indicated that the Applicant had failed to divulge the beneficiary of the goods obtained after he committed the offence, consequent which the sentence should not be reduced. In reply, the Applicant admitted that he was the perpetrator of the offence and prayed for leniency as his children were suffering.
3. The Applicant was charged in Makadara Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case 2795 of 2015 on 14th September, 2015 with three offences namely, obtaining goods by false pretences, issuing a bad cheque and making a document without authority. He was sentenced in Count 1 to a fine of Kshs. 50,000/- in default serve 12 months imprisonment, in count II a fine of Kshs. 20,000/- in default serve 6 months imprisonment and in Count III to a fine of Kshs. 20,000/- in default 6 months imprisonment. He remained in remand until he was sentenced on 25th July, 2018 which cumulatively was a period of two years, 10 months and 11 days.
4. The Applicant’s co-accused was placed on a non-custodial sentence of probation for three years. The varied sentences were informed by the information in the pre-sentencing report that gave an adverse recommendation in the case of the Applicant. Of particular importance is the fact that it pointed to the Applicant’s failure to divulge the details of the beneficiary of the goods obtained from Tim Sales. This was clearly an area that was not in the domain of the probation officer. By dint of his conviction, the Applicant was deemed to be a beneficiary of the goods and the probation officer’s attempt to extract this information from him was ultra vires his mandate.
5. A consideration of the offences indicates that they each carry a maximum sentences of; Count 1- three years imprisonment, Count II - one year imprisonment and Count III - seven years imprisonment. All the sentences passed were legal and accorded with Section 28 of the Penal Code. It follows that that the Applicant was in the remand custody for over two years which is more than the cumulative sentence imposed.
6. In sum, I hold that he served sufficient sentence. I order that he be forthwith set free unless otherwise lawfully held. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED this 20th day of November, 2018
G.W. NGENYE-MACHARIA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
1. Appellant present in person
2. Miss Atina h/b for Miss Akuja for the Respondent.