[2008] KEHC 616 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate did not invoke any wrong principle, overlook any material factor, or impose an excessive sentence. The appellant had previously breached probation and had a prior conviction, justifying the custodial sentence. No grounds were presented to warrant interference with the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 616 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Salim Mwau; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 64 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- I Lenaola
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Housebreaking, Stealing, Probation Breach
- 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
Salim Mwau
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive or based on a wrong principle.
- 2 Whether there was any material factor overlooked by the trial court in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate did not invoke any wrong principle, overlook any material factor, or impose an excessive sentence. The appellant had previously breached probation and had a prior conviction, justifying the custodial sentence. No grounds were presented to warrant interference with the sentence. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
Criminal Appeal 64 of 2008
SALIM MWAU ……..………..……………………..………………... APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ….……………………………………………………. RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The Appellant, Salim Mwau, was charged with the offence of housebreaking contrary to Section 304 (1) and stealing contrary to Section 279 (b) of the Penal Code. He was arraigned before the Kilungu RM’S Court in Cr. Case No.425/2007 on 28/9/2007 and he pleaded guilty to the offence and when a Probation Officer’s report was called for, it was found to have been previously convicted in Cr. Case No. 98/2007 and had breached the terms of Probation. He was then sentenced to serve 3 years in prison.
2. He now appeals against sentence only. My mind is clear that no wrong principle was invoked; no material factor was overlooked neither was the sentence excessive to warrant this court’s interference – See Wanyema vs R (1971) E.A 493. The Appellant has himself pointed out no issue that should sway my mind to being lenient.
3. The Appeal cannot but be dismissed.
4. Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 16thday of December2008.
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE
In Presence of: Mr O’Mirera for Republic
Appellant
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE