[2010] KEHC 577 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant was properly informed of the charges in a language he understood, pleaded guilty unequivocally, and was given an opportunity to mitigate. There was no evidence of torture or coercion, and the complaint appeared to be an afterthought. The trial court was not required to warn the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 577 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Robert Mukhwana Tabu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 22 & 321 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with modification
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Housebreaking, Stealing, Plea Procedure, Sentencing, Mitigation, Concurrent Sentences
- 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 Mukhwana Tabu
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was tortured by the police and forced to admit the charge.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate erred by not warning the appellant of the dangers of pleading guilty.
- 3 Whether the appellant was denied an opportunity to mitigate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant was properly informed of the charges in a language he understood, pleaded guilty unequivocally, and was given an opportunity to mitigate. There was no evidence of torture or coercion, and the complaint appeared to be an afterthought. The trial court was not required to warn the appellant of the dangers of pleading guilty, only to ensure the plea was unequivocal, which was done. The sentences imposed were within the statutory limits and were not excessive or harsh. However, the trial court erred in failing to order that the sentences run concurrently, which the appellate court corrected. The appeal was dismissed except for the order that the sentences run...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with modification
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentences of three years on each limb shall run concurrently.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLICOFKENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BUNGOMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.22 OF 2010
(From original WBY PM. Cr. No.321 of 2010)
ROBERT MUKHWANA TABU:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT
~VRS~
REPUBLIC:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The Appellant Robert Mukhwana Tabu was convicted by Webuye Resident Magistrate of the offence of housebreaking and stealing contrary to sections 304 (1) and 279 (b) of the Penal Code and sentenced to serve three (3) years on each limb. In this appeal against conviction and sentence, the Appellant relies on four (4) grounds:
a)That he was tortured by the police and forced to admit the charge;
b)That the trial magistrate did not warn him of the dangers of pleading guilty;
c)That he was not given time to mitigate;
d)That the sentence of six (6) years for both limbs was harsh and manifestly excessive.
The appeal was opposed by the state Mr. Ogoti State Counsel argued that there was no evidence of torture and that the sentence was reasonable save for the failure by the trial court to indicate that the sentence for both limbs run concurrently.
The charge was read to the Appellant in Kiswahili which language he understood. This is the same language he used in court to argue his appeal. He pleaded guilty to the charge and facts were read to him in the same language. The Appellant admitted the facts and was convicted. In his mitigation, the Appellant explained how he assisted the 1st accused to carry the stolen items and how they helped each other to break into the complainant’s house and steal. The accused did not plead for leniency. He was given the chance to mitigate and said what he thought was appropriate in the circumstances. Since the accused communicated to the court in all aspects during plea, he had the opportunity to complain that he had been tortured in police custody. If the Appellant had a problem, the court would have observed and noted accordingly. If the Appellant had been tortured as he alleges, the court would have inquired about into the matter and taken the necessary action. The complaint of having been tortured appears to be an afterthought. The court had no duty to warn the accused of the dangers of pleading guilty. The duty of the court lies in taking an unequivocal plea which it did.
On the sentences of three (3) years imprisonment for each limb, I find them reasonable and deterrent in the circumstances. The maximum sentences under section 304 (1) and 279 (b) of the Penal Code are seven (7) and fourteen (14) years imprisonment respectively. The trial court failed to order that the sentences run concurrently. The two sentences ought to run concurrently and I hereby so order.
I find that this appeal had no merit and I dismiss it accordingly save for the additional order on sentence.
F. N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
Judgment dated and delivered on the 25th day of October, 2010 in the presence of the Appellant and the State Counsel Mrs. Leting.
F. N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE