[2015] KEHC 252 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 252 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in ordering the default sentences for the fines to run concurrently. According to Section 28 as read with Section 37 of the Penal Code, default sentences for fines on separate counts should run consecutively. The appellant was not a first offender, having been...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 252 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Simon Kimathi M’Aburia; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
17 December 2015
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 142 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal on sentence allowed in part; sentences to run consecutively; sentences commence from original sentencing date.
Judges
RPV Wendoh
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Obtaining by False Pretences, Appeal on Sentence
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Obtaining by False Pretences Appeal on Sentence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Kimathi M’Aburia

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was lawful and appropriate in light of the appellant's circumstances and prior convictions.
  2. 2 Whether the sentences for the two counts should run concurrently or consecutively.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in ordering the default sentences for the fines to run concurrently. According to Section 28 as read with Section 37 of the Penal Code, default sentences for fines on separate counts should run consecutively. The appellant was not a first offender, having been previously convicted for a similar offence. The sentences imposed were within the statutory maximum and not excessive. The appeal on sentence was allowed only to the extent of correcting the concurrency error, and the sentences were ordered to run consecutively, with the period to commence from the original sentencing date.

Court Disposition

Appeal on sentence allowed in part; sentences to run consecutively; sentences commence from original sentencing date.

Orders

  • Count I: Fine of Kshs.140,000 in default, 2 years imprisonment.
  • Count II: Fine of Kshs.50,000 in default, 12 months imprisonment.