[2005] KEHC 257 (KLR)
The court found that, considering the nature of the offence, the appellants' status as first offenders, their remorse, and the substantial period already spent in custody since September 2000, it was just to reduce their sentences to the period already served. The court exercised its discretion to allow the appeals...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 257 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Samson Lerionga Kamoiro; Appellant: Peter Kishoyan; Appellant: Mutwara Ole Sakau; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 355, 356 & 357 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeals against sentence allowed; sentences reduced to period already served.
- Legal Topics
- Robbery, Sentencing, First Offender Principle, Custodial Sentence, Appeal on Sentence
- 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
Samson Lerionga Kamoiro
Appellant
Peter Kishoyan
Appellant
Mutwara Ole Sakau
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants for robbery were excessive in light of their status as first offenders and the period already served.
- 2 Whether the period spent in custody prior to sentencing should be considered in reducing the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, considering the nature of the offence, the appellants' status as first offenders, their remorse, and the substantial period already spent in custody since September 2000, it was just to reduce their sentences to the period already served. The court exercised its discretion to allow the appeals against sentence, holding that continued incarceration would not serve the interests of justice given the circumstances.
Court Disposition
Appeals against sentence allowed; sentences reduced to period already served.
Orders
- Each appellant's sentence is reduced to the period already served.
- Each appellant is to be set free unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL APPEAL 355, 356 & 357 OF 2001
(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 739 of 2001 of the Senior
Resident Magistrate’s court at NAROK – W.O. LICHUMA, SRM)
SAMSON LERIONGA KAMOIRO....................1ST APPELLANT
PETER KISHOYAN.............................................2ND APPELLANT
MUTWARA OLE SAKAU...................................3RD APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC................................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellants were convicted for robbery contrary to Section 296(1) of the Penal Code and each was sentenced to serve 7 years imprisonment and also receive 4 strokes of the cane.
It was alleged that they robbed Shamelok Ole Lemurt Kshs.29,000/- and his daughter Lilian Naserian Lemurt Kshs.25,000/-.
Although each one of them filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence, when the appeals came up for hearing, they all abandoned their respective appeals against conviction and urged the court to reduce their sentences. They said that they were first offenders and that they had been in jail since 16/8/2001 when they were sentenced and prior to that they had been in custody since September 2000. Each one of them was remorseful and said that they had been reformed.
Considering the nature of the offences which they committed, the fact that they were first offenders and the period which they have spent in custody, I am inclined to allow their appeals against their respective sentences and reduce the same to the period already served.
Each of the appellants should be set free unless otherwise lawfully held.
DATED at Nakuru this 15th day of July, 2005.
D. MUSINGA
JUDGE
15/7/2005