[2015] KEHC 3389 (KLR)
The court found that the offences for which the appellant was convicted were similar in nature, committed in similar circumstances, and did not present exceptional circumstances justifying consecutive sentences. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the trial court's order for consecutive sentences and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 3389 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Robert Wakarungu Ndirangu; Respondent: Republic of Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 129 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; sentences to run concurrently.
- Judges
- JK Mulwa
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Sentences, False Pretence 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 Wakarungu Ndirangu
Appellant
Republic of Kenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in ordering sentences for similar offences to run consecutively instead of concurrently.
- 2 Whether the total sentence imposed was excessive given the circumstances of the offences.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the offences for which the appellant was convicted were similar in nature, committed in similar circumstances, and did not present exceptional circumstances justifying consecutive sentences. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the trial court's order for consecutive sentences and substituted it with an order that all sentences run concurrently. The appellant was thus to serve a maximum of 7½ years imprisonment from the date of the original judgment, aligning with established sentencing principles and the lack of objection from the state.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; sentences to run concurrently.
Orders
- The sentences imposed on the appellant on each of the twelve counts are to run concurrently.
- The appellant shall serve imprisonment for a term of 7½ years from 14th May, 2012.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NUMBER 129 OF 2012
ROBERT WAKARUNGU NDIRANGU…........................... APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC OF KENYA......................................... RESPONDENT
(from original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case Number 2979/2010 at Nyahururu of Hon. C.K. Obara ( Senior Resident Magistrate) at Nyahururu Law Courts delivered on 14th May, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON THE
14TH MARCH 2015
On the 14th March, 2015, this court allowed the Appellant's appeal arising from the conviction and sentence handed down by the Honourable Senior Resident Magistrate C.K. Obara on the 14th May, 2012.
The accused was found guilty and convicted for the offences of obtaining by false pretence contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code.
The offences were alleged to have been committed on various dates at various places. The amounts of money obtained by false pretences were also various and obtained from different persons. By their nature, the offences were similar and all committed in similar circumstances.
After full hearing by the trial court, the accused was found guilty with regard to 5 counts and was convicted accordingly under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Judgment was delivered by the Principal Magistrate L.M. Wachira on behalf of the Hon. C.K. Obara- Senior Principal Magistrate on the 14th May, 2012.
In passing sentence, the Honourable magistrate noted that the accused belonged to cartel that worked together and subjected desperate citizens of this country to untold mental anguish by promising them non existent jobs and letters of employment. For counts number 1 to 7 the accused was sentenced to one year jail term for each thus 7 years. For counts 8 to 12, the accused was sentenced to 11/2years imprisonment for each count, thus 5 years. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
Being dissatisfied with the said sentence the accused appealed against the sentence only. In his submissions, the accused submitted that since the offences were similar in nature and were committed in similar circumstances, the sentence should have been ordered to run concurrently and prayed that the said sentence amounting into total to 141/2years imprisonment be ordered to run concurrently meaning 71/2years.
Learned state counsel Mr. Chirchir did not object, and urged the court to allow the appeal. The appeal was allowed and ordered that the sentence imposed upon the appellant shall run-concurrently to a maximum of 71/2 years imprisonment from the 14th May, 2012.
The purpose of sentencing is to disaprove or denounce unlawful conduct as a means to deter the offender from committing further offences.
In the case Republic -vs- Sawedi Mukasa S/o Abdullah Aligwaisa 13 EACA 97,the court held that where a person commits more than one offence at the same time and place and in similar circumstances,
save in very rare circumstances, the sentences ought to run concurrently, but it is at the discretion of the court.
In this matter, I find no exceptional circumstances that may have influenced the trial court not to order the sentences to run concurrently. Indeed the state counsel had no objection at all. As the court's discretion is personal to the individual judicial officer, I find no fault in the manner the trial court exercised its discretion upon hearing the appellant. I am persuaded to exercise my judicial discretion after taking all circumstances of the case into account and set aside the trial court's order that the sentences imposed on the appellant on each of the twelve counts, totaling to 14 ½ years imprisonment, and substitute it with an order that the said sentences in all the twelve counts run concurrently. The appellant shall therefore serve imprisonment for a term of 71/2years from 14th May, 2012, the date the trial court delivered its judgment.
Dated signed and delivered in open this 25th day of June 2015
JANET MULWA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Appellant - present in person
Ms. Ngovi - for Respondent/state
Court clerk - Lina.