[2021] KEHC 2837 (KLR)
The High Court found that the custodial sentence imposed on the Applicant was legal and within the discretion of the trial magistrate. However, considering the value of the stolen property and the period already served in custody (about two years and four months), the court determined that the Applicant had been...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 2837 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samwel Macharia Mururi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 97 (E173) of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Revision Ruling
- Outcome
- sentence_commuted_to_time_served
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Revision, Stealing by Servant, Judicial Discretion in Sentencing, Custodial Sentence, Sentence Commutation
- 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
Samwel Macharia Mururi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Revision Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the custodial sentence imposed on the Applicant was harsh, excessive, or failed to meet the ends of justice.
- 2 Whether the court should interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion in sentencing the Applicant.
- 3 Whether the period already served by the Applicant in prison constitutes sufficient punishment.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the custodial sentence imposed on the Applicant was legal and within the discretion of the trial magistrate. However, considering the value of the stolen property and the period already served in custody (about two years and four months), the court determined that the Applicant had been sufficiently punished. The court also noted the Applicant's apparent reformation and readiness to reintegrate into society. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to commute the remaining sentence to the period already served, ordering the Applicant's immediate release unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
sentence_commuted_to_time_served
Orders
- The custodial sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate on the Applicant is hereby commuted to the period served.
- The Applicant is ordered set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 97 (E173) OF 2021
SAMWEL MACHARIA MURURI ......................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..........................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, Samwel Macharia Mururi was convicted of the offence of Stealing by Servant contrary to Section 281 of the Penal Code. The trial Magistrate held that the prosecution had established to the required standard of proof that the Applicant stole the sum of Kshs 380,000/- from his employer. He was sentenced to serve five (5) years imprisonment on 8th July 2019. The Applicant has been in prison for slightly less than two years and four months.
The Applicant has applied to this court for a revision of his sentence. He pleads with the court to take into consideration the fact that in the period that he has been in prison he had been sufficiently punished. He had learnt his lesson. He had reformed. During the period of his incarceration, his family has suffered. He was of the view that he was now ready to return back to society having repaid his just debts. Mr Omooria for the State was opposed to the Applicant’s plea for reduction of sentence. He pointed out that the Applicant had not indicated how he was going to compensate his employer were the court to exercise its discretion in his favour. He was of the view that the custodial sentence that was imposed upon the Applicant was infact lenient in the circumstances.
This court has considered the Applicant’s plea for reduction of custodial sentence. When the trial magistrate sentenced the Applicant to serve the custodial sentence, he was exercising judicial discretion. That exercise of discretion can only be interfered with if it is established that the trial court did not take into consideration relevant factors or took into consideration irrelevant factors. This court will also interfere with the sentence if it is established that the sentence was either harsh, excessive or did not meet the ends of justice.
In the present application, it was clear to the court that the custodial sentence imposed on the Applicant was legal. However, this court has considered the value of the stated stolen subject matter. It has also considered the fact that the Applicant has been in prison for a period of about two years and four months. This court formed the opinion that the Applicant has been sufficiently punished. It was also evident that the period that he has stayed in lawful custody has done him some good. He has learnt that crime does not pay. He has undertaken a course that will enable him to be economically engaged upon his released from prison.
In the premises therefore, the custodial sentence that was imposed by the trial Magistrate on the Applicant is hereby commuted to the period served. He is ordered set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. It is so ordered.
DATED AT KITALE THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021.
L. KIMARU
JUDGE