https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7099

Sila v Republic (Criminal Revision E014 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7099 (KLR) (22 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7099 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Thika Criminal Revision E014 of 2025 BM Musyoki, J May 22, 2026 Between Shadrack Kiilu Sila Applicant and Republic Respondent (Being revision of sentence in the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Machakos (Hon. M.A. Otindo PM) in criminal case number E178 of 2022 dated 30-06-2025) Ruling 1.In this application, applicant is asking this court to revise sentence imposed on him on 30-06-2022 in the Chief Magistrate’s court at Machakos criminal case number E178 of 2022. The applicant had been charged with three counts as follows;Count 1Vandalism with intent to interfere with the operation of the licensee contrary to Section 168(4)(b) of the Energy Act No. 1 of 2019 particulars being that on the night of 16th January 2022, at Mua Hills in Machakos Sub-County within Machakos County, jointly with others not before court, with intent to interfere with the operation of the licensee, vandalized five span of 11KVA High Voltage transmission conductor valued at Kshs 400,000 under the control of Kenya Power and Lighting Company, PLC, the licensee.Count 2Vandalism with intent to interfere with the operation of the licensee contrary to Section 168(4)(b) of the Energy Act No. 1 of 2019 particulars being that on the night of 16th January 2022, at Mua Hills in Machakos Sub-County within Machakos County, jointly with others not before court, with intent to interfere with the operation of the licensee, vandalized five span of low voltage transmission conductor valued at Kshs 200,000 under the control of Kenya Power and Lighting Company, PLC, the licensee.Count 3Handling of an assortment of energy equipment contrary to Section 169(1)(c) of the Energy Act No. 1 of 2019 whose particulars were that on the 1st day of April 2022, at Mua Hills area of Machakos Sub-County within Machakos County, otherwise than in the course of stealing, dishonestly retained 300 metres of vandalized 11KV high voltage transmission conductors type 0.1, the property of Kenya Power and Lighting Company, PLC, knowing or having reason to believe them to be stolen or unlawfully obtained. 2.The applicant pleaded guilty even after the court warned him of the seriousness of the offences and likelihood of severe sentences. The facts were read to the applicant and for good reasons, I reproduce them as follows;“On 16-01-2022, a report was made at Kenya Power Company that a high voltage line along Mulilu in Mua road had been vandalized. The scene was visited and it was found that about 300 metres of high voltage light had been vandalized. The same was reported at Mua police post and investigations commenced. On 1/04/2022, the police officers from Mua police post who were travelling to Machakos examination center at around 4 intercepted the accused person herein ferrying about 300m of high voltage conductor, cut about 10 pieces. The pieces were stashed to a sack and were 35 pieces in total. Also recovered from the accused person was a metal hacksaw, one measuring scale, one pliers, one knife and torch. He was escorted to Machakos police station and put in custody. After investigations, the charges before court were preferred and exhibits are before court. The exhibits before the court are high voltage in pieces i.e. 35 pieces in total." 3.After the pieces were produced as exhibits, the applicant stated that the facts were true and was convicted on his own plea of guilty. After hearing the applicant’s mitigation, the trial court sentenced him as follows;a.Count 1 to five years imprisonment with no option of a fine pursuant to Section 169(1)(c) of the Energy Act No. 1 of 2019.b.Count 2 to five years imprisonment with no option of a fine pursuant to Section 168(4)(b) of the Energy Act No. 1 of 2019.c.Count 3 to ten years imprisonment with no potion of a fine pursuant to Section 168(4)(b) of the Energy Act No. 1 of 2019. 4.The court ordered that the above sentences shall run consecutively. It is this order that the applicant seeks to have revised and replaced with an order that the sentences shall run concurrently. 5.I have considered the application, the undated submissions of the applicant filed on 9-11-2025 and the submissions of the respondent dated 18-11-2025. I have noted that the parties are in agreement on the principle which a court should consider when making a decision on whether the sentences contained in the same charge should run concurrently or consecutively. Both parties have cited to me authorities which support the position. 6.It is an established principle that as much as the decision is at the discretion of the trial court, where the accused person is charged with more than one count in the same charge sheet for offences which attract distinct punishments but emanate from the same chain of events or transactions, it is appropriate and preferable that the sentences be ordered to run concurrently. 7.The parties’ point of departure is whether the three counts were emanating from the same transaction or involved distinct and separate transactions. The applicant maintains that the same were products of the same transaction since they involved the same act of vandalism on 16th January 2022 and that the conductors which were found in his possession came from the same act. On the other hand, the respondent submits that count 1 and 2 may have been from the same transaction but count 3 was from different transaction because it came four months later. 8.The applicant admitted the vandalism of 16th April 2022 which means that he admitted being part of the team if, he was not the only one who vandalized the power line. The facts read to the applicant stated that 300 metres of high voltage light had been vandalised on the 16th January 2022. The facts also stated that the applicant was intercepted while in possession of 300 meters of the high voltage conductors. 9.It is not indicated whether these were the same conductors which were vandalised on 16th January 2022 but there is no reason to believe they were not. The prosecution did not connect the conductors with a different incidence. The length of the vandalized and recovered conductors was the same and belonged to the same complainant. In my view, the property found in possession of the applicant is the same which was stolen on the date of vandalism. Despite the length of the period between the vandalism and recovery, it is my opinion that the all the offences in the three counts emanated from the same transaction, action or event. 9.Having said the above, I hold the view that the trial court should have been guided by the above cited principle and ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently. I therefore allow the application and specifically order that the sentence meted on the applicant in Machakos Chief Magistrate Court’s criminal case number E178 of 2022 shall run concurrently. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 2026.B.M. MUSYOKIJUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT.Ruling delivered in presence of Mr. Kisumba holding brief for Mr. Mang’are for the respondent and in absence of the applicant.