[2011] KEHC 2982 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant was arraigned within two days of arrest and did not raise any complaint about his health or breach of rights at the trial. No medical evidence was produced to support the claim of sickness, nor was there evidence that the alleged constitutional breach was related to the trial....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2982 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Sammy Kipngetich Kirwa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 33 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.
- Legal Topics
- Plea of Guilty, Fair Trial Rights, Sentencing Principles, Mitigation, Constitutional Rights
- 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
Sammy Kipngetich Kirwa
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's fair-trial rights under Section 72(3) of the Constitution were breached.
- 2 Whether the appellant's plea was valid given his alleged sickness.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant was arraigned within two days of arrest and did not raise any complaint about his health or breach of rights at the trial. No medical evidence was produced to support the claim of sickness, nor was there evidence that the alleged constitutional breach was related to the trial. Therefore, the conviction was upheld. However, the court held that the trial magistrate failed to adequately consider the appellant's status as a first offender and his early plea of guilty in sentencing. The sentence of five years was deemed excessive in the circumstances, particularly as the prosecution had not provided evidence of prevalence of the offence. The sentence was...
Court Disposition
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.
Orders
- The sentence of five years imprisonment is set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to three years imprisonment from the date of conviction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
CORAM: F. AZANGALALA J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2011
BETWEEN
SAMMY KIPNGETICH........................................................APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC.......................................................................RESPONDENT
[Being an Appeal from the Judgment of the Principal Magistrate
{ D. K. Kemei} dated 25/10/2010 – in Eld. CMC.CRC. No.5246 of 2010]
JUDGMENT
Sammy Kipngetich Kirwa, the appellant, was charged in the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Eldoret with the offence of Grievous Harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal code. It was alleged that the appellant on the 20th October, 2010 at Ngara Falls village in Wareng district within the Rift Valley Province did grievous harm to Kirwa Sang. The appellant appeared before D.K. Kemei, Principal Magistrate and pleaded guilty to the charge. The prosecution then stated the facts of the case and the appellant was invited to admit, dispute or explain those facts and he informed the learned Principal Magistrate that the facts were correct. The learned Principal Magistrate then convicted the appellant on his own plea. He then received the prosecutor’s statement on sentence and the appellant’s mitigation followed with the sentence of five (5) years imprisonment.
The appellant was dissatisfied and has appealed to this court on the main grounds that his fair-trial rights under Section 72 (3) of the Constitution were breached and that he took his plea when he was sick.
When the appeal came up before me for hearing on 7th April, 2004, the appellant was not represented and submitted that the Complainant, who is his father, had forgiven him and now sought the forgiveness of the court. Mr. Oluoch, the learned Senior Deputy Prosecution Counsel, who represented the state, supported the appellant’s conviction and sentence and urged that his appeal be dismissed.
I have considered the record and re-evaluated the proceedings before the learned Principal Magistrate. The charge sheet indicates that the appellant was arrested on 22nd October, 2010, and arraigned before the Principal Magistrate on 25th of the same month. Prima facie therefore, he was held by the police for 2 days before he was arraigned before the learned Principal Magistrate. However, the record does not show that the appellant complained about breach of his fair-trial rights then or his state of health. The appellant has also not produced any medical evidence to support his allegation of sickness. He has also not demonstrated that the alleged infringement of his fair trial rights under the Constitution was trial related. In the premises, I am not persuaded that his fair trial rights were infringed. The appeal on conviction is therefore without merit and is dismissed.
With regard to sentence, I note that the appellant in mitigation prayed to be pardoned. That was considered by the learned Principal Magistrate. The learned Principal Magistrate however, does not seem to have considered that the appellant was a first offender and had pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity. He also took into account that the offence was prevalent when he imposed a 5 year imprisonment. The prosecution had not given statistics of the offence in the area. The facts of the case were infact peculiar as the appellant had done grievous harm to his father. I find it difficult to appreciate how this offence would be prevalent in the area. In those premises, I have come to the conclusion that the learned Principal Magistrate may not have appreciated the appellant’s circumstances. I therefore find that the sentence of five years imprisonment, though legal, was excessive in the circumstances of the appellant. I will therefore interfere with the same. The sentence is reduced to three (3) years. The effect is that the appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of five years imprisonment is hereby set aside and is substituted with a sentence of imprisonment for three (3) years from the date of the appellant’s conviction by the trial court.
The appeal against conviction is otherwise dismissed.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 19TH DAY OF MAY 2011.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE.
Read in the presence of:-
(i)Sammy Kipngetich Kirwa, the appellant in person
(ii) Mr. Chirchir holding brief for Mr. Oluoch, Senior Deputy
Prosecution Counsel for the State.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE.