[2017] KEHC 5254 (KLR)
The court held that it would not interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court because the appellant had previously been convicted and sentenced for a similar offence. The appellate court reaffirmed the principle that it does not alter a sentence simply because it might have passed a different one, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 5254 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Saitoti Loitabo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 93 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Recidivism, Handling Stolen Property
- 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
Saitoti Loitabo
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant for handling stolen property was excessive or should be interfered with on appeal.
- 2 Whether the appellant's previous conviction for a similar offence justified the sentence imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it would not interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court because the appellant had previously been convicted and sentenced for a similar offence. The appellate court reaffirmed the principle that it does not alter a sentence simply because it might have passed a different one, and found no basis to interfere with the sentence of seven years' imprisonment for handling stolen property, given the appellant's recidivism.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appellant's appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 93 OF 2016
SAITOTI LOITABO ………….......….….………….. APPELLANT
Versus
REPUBLIC………….………………………...…… RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence by Hon. A K GACHIE –Resident Magistrate dated 2nd November 2015 in Maralal Principal Magistrate Court Criminal Case No. 169 of 2015)
JUDGMENT
1. SAITOTI LOITABOwas charged before Principal Magistrate’s Court Maralal with the Offence of Breaking into a building and committing a felony Contrary to Section 306 (a) of the Penal on the main charge, and in the alternative charge with the offence of handling stolen property Contrary to Section 322 of the Penal Code. After trial he was convicted on the alternative charge. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment after the court found that he was not a first time offender but that he had been previously convicted of a similar offence and was in that case sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
2. He now presents this appeal against sentence. He presented his grounds of appeal in the form of mitigation.
3. The Principal Prosecution Counsel Mr Tanui opposed the appeal on sentence on the ground that the appellant had committed a similar offence previously.
4. The court while sitting as an appellant court does not alter a sentence on the ground it might have passed a different sentence to that passed by the trial: see MACHARIA -V- REPUBLIC [2003] KLR 115. It is because of that principle and because the appellant had previously been convicted and sentenced for a similar offence that this court dismisses the appellant’s appeal against sentence.
Dated and Delivered at Nanyuki this 7th JUNE 2017
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Coram
Before Justice Mary Kasango
Court Assistant: Njue/Mariastella
Accused: Saitoti Loitabo
For state: ..........................................
Language ……….............................
COURT
Judgment delivered in open court
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE