[2014] KEHC 4570 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate had properly considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the fact that the appellant was not authorized to drive, and that he was a first offender. The sentence imposed was within the statutory limits and was not excessive or harsh. There was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4570 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Robert Odeyo Odero; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 2 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; sentence affirmed
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Dangerous Driving, Sentencing Principles, Appeal Against Sentence, Traffic 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 Odeyo Odero
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed for causing death by dangerous driving and driving without a license was excessive.
- 2 Whether the appellate court should interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate had properly considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the fact that the appellant was not authorized to drive, and that he was a first offender. The sentence imposed was within the statutory limits and was not excessive or harsh. There was no basis for appellate interference as the trial court did not overlook material facts, consider irrelevant matters, or misapply legal principles. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed and the sentence affirmed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; sentence affirmed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentence imposed by the trial court is affirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT HOMA BAY
HCCRA NO. 2 OF 2013
BETWEEN
ROBERT ODEYO ODERO ………………………... APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC ……………………………………...…. RESPONDENT
(Appeal arising from the original conviction and sentence of Homa Bay CM’S TR. NO. 371 of 2010 by Hon. S. Ongeri, Ag PM dated 25th January 2013)
JUDGMENT
The appellant, Robert Odeyo Odero, was charged with the offence of causing death by dangerous driving contrary to section 46 of the Traffic Act and the offence of driving a vehicle without a driving license contrary to section 30(1) of the Traffic Act. He was tried and convicted on both counts. On the former count, he was sentenced to serve a term of 7 years imprisonment and on the latter count he was fined Kshs.3,000/= in default 3 months imprisonment. Both sentences were to run concurrently.
He now appeals against the conviction and sentence. However, in his petition he appeals against the sentence. He states that the sentence is excessive as he is the sole breadwinner for his wife and one child. He also requests that the court should also reduce his sentence as he is sick, requires treatment and in the circumstances, a non-custodial sentence would be appropriate.
The State opposes the appeal on the ground that the sentence is neither harsh nor excessive.
As this is an appeal against the sentence, the appellant court is bound to accept the decision of the subordinate court unless the court below overlooked material facts or factors, took into account irrelevant facts or acted on the wrong principles.
The basis of the conviction was that the appellant without authority of the owner of the motor vehicle, drove a vehicle recklessly from a petrol station, crossed the road and roamed into a shop thereby causing death. These facts show that the appellant was not even authorized to drive. The learned Magistrate, in sentencing him, took these facts into account and the fact that he was a first offender. The maximum penalty prescribed for the 1st count under section 46 of the Traffic Act is 10 years imprisonment while for the 2nd count it is 3 months imprisonment.
Taking all these factors into account, I find no reason to interfere in the sentence. The sentence is therefore affirmed and as a result the appeal is dismissed.
DATED and DELIVERED at HOMABAYthis 17th DAY OF JUNE 2014
D. S. MAJANJA
JUDGE