[2012] KEHC 4973 (KLR)
The High Court found that while the sentence imposed by the trial court was lawful, it failed to adequately consider mitigating factors such as the appellant being a first offender, the recovery of the stolen goats, and the value of the subject matter. The court held that these factors warranted a reduction in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 4973 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Silas Manthi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 335 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed_in_part
- Judges
- GL Nzioka
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Stock Theft, Mitigation of 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
Silas Manthi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate was harsh and excessive given the circumstances of the case.
- 2 Whether the trial court considered relevant mitigating factors such as the appellant being a first offender and the value of the stolen property.
- 3 Whether the recovery of the stolen goats and the period spent on trial should affect the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that while the sentence imposed by the trial court was lawful, it failed to adequately consider mitigating factors such as the appellant being a first offender, the recovery of the stolen goats, and the value of the subject matter. The court held that these factors warranted a reduction in the sentence. Consequently, the sentence of seven years was set aside and substituted with a sentence of three years, effective from the date of the original sentence in the lower court.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed_in_part
Orders
- The sentence of seven years imprisonment is set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to three years imprisonment, effective from the date of sentence in the lower court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 335 OF 2010
(From the Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No. 63 of 2010 of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court – Taveta C.N. NDEGWA – S R M)
SILAS MANTHI …………………………………..............................................…………………..APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………………………………..........................................…...……………….. ACCUSED
JUDGMENT
SILAS MANTHI was charged with the offence of stock theft contrary to Section 278 of the Penal Code.
The particulars of the charge are that:
“On the 14th day of February, 2010 at around 5:00 p.m. at Kiwalwa village in Taveta District of the Coast Province jointly with another not before Court stole twenty one goats valued at Kshs. 30,000/= the property of Goodwill Layani”.
The appellant was tried and convicted. He was sentenced to serve SEVEN years imprisonment. He is aggrieved with the sentence and has appealed against it. He has filed the following grounds of appeal.
1. That the learned trial magistrate ought to have taken into account that I am a first offender and award me a non custodial sentence.
2. That the Learned trial magistrate ought to have meted a sentence that was economically compatible with the alleged worth of the stolen stock.
3. That the Learned trial Magistrate sentence of 7 years imprisonment was and is manfestively harsh and excessive given the cases circumstances.
4. That the Learned trial Magistrate ought to have meted out a sentence that was lenient and fair.
5. That the Learned trial Magistrate ought to have considered my mitigation.
The appeal has been opposed by the State Mr. Tanui, the Learned State Counsel submitted that, the offence carries a sentence of 14 years and therefore the sentence of 7 years was lenient. That, the Court took into account the number of the goats stolen and therefore the sentence is proper.
In my considered opinion, the appellant was given was a lawful and proper sentence. It’s within the Law. However, some of the factors the Court ought to consider while passing sentences is the value of the subject matter (Mathai Vs Republic (1983) KLR 422) and whether there has been restitution of the property. In addition the effect of the sentence must be considered alongside the prevalence of the type of offence and the seriousness of the offence. The value of the subject matter is Kshs. 30,000/= the goats were recovered and the accused was a first offender. In the circumstances I shall take into account the said factors and the period he was on trial from 15th March, 2010 to Judgment and sentence. I set aside the sentence imposed and I substitute it with a sentence of THREE years, the same shall take effect from the date of sentence in the lower court.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Mombasa.
G.L. NZIOKA
JUDGE
21ST MARCH, 2012
In the presence of:-
Appellant present in person
Ms Macharia for the State
Cc Maroro
G.L. NZIOKA
JUDGE
21ST MARCH, 2012