[2012] KEHC 630 (KLR)
The High Court found that the sentence of one year imprisonment imposed on the appellant, who pleaded guilty to obtaining Kshs. 39,000 by false pretences, was within the statutory maximum of three years. The court noted that the appellant had not made any effort to repay the complainant, and there was no evidence of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 630 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Samson Omire Barrack; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 86 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Obtaining by False Pretences, Sentencing Principles, Plea of Guilty, Judicial Discretion in Sentencing
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Samson Omire Barrack
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of one year imprisonment for obtaining money by false pretences was excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial court exercised its discretion properly in sentencing the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the sentence of one year imprisonment imposed on the appellant, who pleaded guilty to obtaining Kshs. 39,000 by false pretences, was within the statutory maximum of three years. The court noted that the appellant had not made any effort to repay the complainant, and there was no evidence of good faith or remorse. The circumstances of the offence were clear and straightforward, with the appellant deliberately converting the complainant's money for his own use. The court concluded that the sentence was neither excessive nor unjust, and there was no basis for appellate interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. Accordingly, the appeal against...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentence of one year imprisonment is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Kisumu
Criminal Appeal 86 of 2012 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; text-autospace:ideograph-other; font-size:12. 0pt;"Liberation Serif","serif";} </style> <![endif]
SAMSON OMIRE BARRACK..............................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …....................................................................RESPONDENT
From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case number 569 of 2012 of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Siaya – Mr. J. N. Sani Esq)
JUDGMENT
The appellant was charged with the offence of “obtaining money by false pretences contrary to Section 313 of the penal code.
The particulars of the offence are that on the 7th day January 2012 at 0900am at Malanga Sub location Ulughulu village in Gem District within Nyanza Province with intent to defraud obtained from Joyce Akumu Okumu Kshs. 39,000 by falsely pretending he was going to Kisumu K P L C Officers to pay for her as connection fee for electricity”.
The appellant on his own plea of guilt was convicted and sentence to one year imprisonment.
He filed four (4) grounds of appeal. During the hearing however Mr. Odeny his counsel decided to withdraw the grounds on conviction but dwelt mainly on sentence. He implored this court to consider the sentence of one year meted against the appellant to be excessive in the circumstances.
The State on the other hand supported the conviction arguing that the same was within the law and not excessive.
Sentencing as is the case is usually discretional provided that it is done within the parameters of the law. The offence against the appellant attracts a maximum period of three (3) years.
In this case the appellant was sentence to one (1) year imprisonment. The circumstance which were not disputed by the appellant were clear and straight forward. The appellant deliberately and knowingly took the sum of Kshs. 39,000 from the complainant and instead of paying the electricity connection charges on her behalf he converted the same for his own use.
I note further that despite all this he has not made any practical efforts to pay back the money. I do not see any good faith on his part. I dare to add that it was not impossible for the appellant to have taken more money from the complainant if the occasion would have arisen.
In the premises I do find the one year jail term to be adequate and sufficient. The same is not excessive in anyway to require my intervention. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 26th day of November 2012
H. K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Meroka for State Counsel
Mr. Odeny for Appellant
HKC/aao