[2005] KEHC 1589 (KLR)
The court found no merit in the appeal against conviction and sentence for arson under Section 332 of the Penal Code. The appellant had already served part of the sentence and expressed willingness to serve the remainder. The court, having reviewed the record, upheld the original conviction and sentence, finding no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1589 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Robert Kipruto Kibii; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 131 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Arson, Sentencing, Penal Code Section 332
- 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 Kipruto Kibii
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction and sentence for arson under Section 332 of the Penal Code were proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no merit in the appeal against conviction and sentence for arson under Section 332 of the Penal Code. The appellant had already served part of the sentence and expressed willingness to serve the remainder. The court, having reviewed the record, upheld the original conviction and sentence, finding no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
10 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Criminal Appeal 131 of 2004
(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 358 of 2004 of the Senior Magistrate’s Court at Molo – Mr. R.K. Kirui)
ROBERT KIPRUTO KIBII……….……………...APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………………………...RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
From the record, it is apparent that the Appellant had been charged for the offence of Arson, contrary to Section 332 of the Penal Code. He was later found “guilty” and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. He has already served 1 year and 2 months. He now wishes to serve the remainder of the sentence which is quite short.
In view of the above, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
MUGA APONDI
JUDGE
Judgment written, signed and delivered in open Court.
MUGA APONDI JUDGE 21ST JULY, 2005