[2006] KEHC 3141 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate failed to recognize the appellant's guilty plea and first offender status, both of which are material mitigating factors in sentencing. The magistrate also erred by imposing a fine of Kshs. 1 million instead of the statutory requirement of three times the value of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 3141 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Samuel Chidiebedere; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 397 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; sentence varied.
- Judges
- CJ Kendagor
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Narcotic Drugs Offences, Plea of Guilty, First Offender, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Samuel Chidiebedere
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive and failed to consider mitigating factors.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate erred by not applying the statutory requirement for the fine under Section 4(a) of Act No. 4 of 1994.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial magistrate failed to recognize the appellant's guilty plea and first offender status, both of which are material mitigating factors in sentencing. The magistrate also erred by imposing a fine of Kshs. 1 million instead of the statutory requirement of three times the value of the drug (Kshs. 1,350,000). The court held that the sentence of 8 years imprisonment was excessive and manifestly harsh given the circumstances, including the relatively small quantity of heroin involved. The court substituted the sentence with six years imprisonment and a fine of Kshs. 1,350,000, or in default, one year imprisonment, both to run from the date of the original sentence.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; sentence varied.
Orders
- The sentence of 8 years imprisonment and a fine of Kshs. 1 million is set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to six years imprisonment and a fine of Kshs. 1,350,000, or in default, one year imprisonment, both from the date of sentence in the lower court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Criminal Appeal 397 of 2004
SAMUEL CHIDIEBEDER………..….……….......................................….………….…..APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………… ……………....................................…………….…....RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The Appellant was convicted for the offence of TRAFFICKING IN NARCOTIC DRUGScontrary to Section 4(a) of Act No. 4 of 1994. He had pleaded guilty to the offence. He was then sentenced to 8 years imprisonment and fined Kshs. 1 million in default 1 year’s imprisonment. He now appeals against the sentence.
The Appellant in his written submissions argued that the sentence was excessive since he was remorseful for the offence and has realized with remorse the seriousness of the repercussions of drugs. The Appellant submitted further that he had undergone correctional training and rehabilitation programmes while in remand which he said had equipped him with enough knowledge to remain a law abiding citizen. He said he was an orphan and a poor man.
The appeal was opposed.
MR. MAKURA, learned counsel for the State urged the court to correct the erroneous part of the sentence, where the learned trial magistrate, in disregard to the provisions of Section 4(a), Act No. 4 of 1994 imposed a fine of 1 million instead of the recommended three times the value of the drug. MR. MAKURA submitted that there was a certificate adduced by the prosecution showing that the value of the drug recovered from the Appellant was Kshs.450,000/.
I have carefully considered this appeal. In the case of SAYEKO vs. REPUBLIC [1959] KLR 306, it was held:
“The appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower court unless it is evident that the lower court has acted upon some wrong principle or over looked some material factor or the sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case.
A plea of guilty from a first offender requires recognition as a matter of principle.”
I am persuaded by this decision. I have perused the record of the trial court and nowhere did the learned magistrate give recognition of the fact that the Appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge therefore saving court’s time. The learned trial magistrate did not also recognize that the Appellant was a first offender. The court gave more weight to the seriousness of drug cases generally and the need to pass what the learned trial magistrate terms a “deterrent sentence”. In so doing I find that the learned trial magistrate overlooked material factors which dictated a less severe sentence than the one imposed. In those circumstances I find that the sentence of 8 years imprisonment was excessive and manifestly harsh having considered the Appellant pleaded guilty, was a first offender and that the amount of drug involved was not enormous. I do appreciate however that, however small heroin is, it is undesirable to any society and no one should be treated by the court in such a manner as to serve as an inducement to continue involvement in trafficking the same
I will allow the appeal in part by setting aside the sentence of 8 years imprisonment and a fine of 1 million and in substitution thereof sentence the Appellant to six years imprisonment with a fine of Kshs.1,350,000 and in default 1 year imprisonment, both from the date of sentence in the lower court.
Dated at Nairobi this 22nd day of March 2006.
…………………………
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE
Read, signed and delivered in the presence of;
Appellant - present
Mr. Makura for State
CC: Huka
…………………………
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE