[2024] KEHC 5603 (KLR)
The court found no material to demonstrate any incorrectness, illegality, or impropriety in the trial court's proceedings or sentence. The sentences imposed were lawful and there was no basis for interference on the grounds advanced by the applicant. However, the court noted that the applicant was a first offender...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 5603 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kalala Matheu Salamba; Respondent: Director Of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E110 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- sentence varied; application for revision partially allowed
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Forgery, Sentencing Principles, Revision Jurisdiction, Mitigation, Immigration 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
Kalala Matheu Salamba
Applicant
Director Of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court's sentence was incorrect, illegal, or improper under the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the applicant's status as a single father constitutes sufficient grounds for revision of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no material to demonstrate any incorrectness, illegality, or impropriety in the trial court's proceedings or sentence. The sentences imposed were lawful and there was no basis for interference on the grounds advanced by the applicant. However, the court noted that the applicant was a first offender and, in line with sentencing principles, entitled to the least available sentence. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to substitute the sentence of 1 ½ years on each count with a 12-month imprisonment term for each count, to run concurrently as previously ordered.
Court Disposition
sentence varied; application for revision partially allowed
Orders
- The sentence of 1 ½ years in counts 1 and 2 is substituted with a 12 months’ imprisonment term in each count.
- The sentences shall run concurrently as directed by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Salamba v Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Revision E110 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 5603 (KLR) (9 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 5603 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Revision E110 of 2024
TW Cherere, J
May 9, 2024
Between
Kalala Matheu Salamba
Applicant
and
Director Of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Ruling
1. The brief facts of this revision are that Applicant was charged in Isiolo CM Criminal Case No. E020 of 2024 with the offence of forgery contrary to section 345 of the Penal Code, making a document contrary to section 357 (a) of the same Act and being unlawfully present in Kenya contrary to section 53(1) (j) of the Citizenship and Immigration Act. Applicant was subsequently convicted and sentenced to serve 1 ½ years in the 1st and 2nd counts which sentences are to run concurrently.
2. Applicants seeks a review on the grounds that he is a single father and his children are suffering. Ms. Rita for the DPP did not oppose the application.
3. The powers of the High court in revision cases are contained in Section 362 through to 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code (cap.75) Laws of Kenya. Section 362 specifically provides as follows: -“362. The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court”.
4. No material has been placed before the court to demonstrate any incorrectness, illegality or impropriety of the proceedings of the trial court. On the contrary, the sentences meted out by the trial magistrate are lawful and I find no reason to interfere with them. Additionally, the fact that Applicant is a single father might have been a good mitigating factor but is not one such ground as would entitle him to an order of review.
5. I however note that Applicant is a first offender entitled to the least available sentence for the offences he was charged with.
6. It is therefore hereby ordered as follows:1. The sentence of 1 ½ years in counts 1 and 2 is substituted with a 12 months’ imprisonment term in each count2. The sentences shall run concurrently as directed by the trial court.
DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 09th DAY May 2024WAMAE. T W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistants - Kinoti/MuneneFor Applicant - Present in personFor Respondent - Ms. Rita Rotich (PC-1)