[2015] KEHC 253 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 253 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial court erred in ordering the sentences for the two counts to run concurrently after imposing fines for both. According to the Penal Code, fines for separate offences should result in consecutive sentences. However, the appellate court recognized that the trial court appeared to intend a total custodial sentence of two years in default of payment of fines. The appellate court therefore adjusted the sentences: for Count I, a fine of Kshs.749,000 or 18 months imprisonment in default; for Count II, a fine of Kshs.200,000 or 6 months imprisonment in default. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, with the custodial term totaling 24 months if fines...

Citation
[2015] KEHC 253 (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 141 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal on sentence allowed in part; sentences adjusted to run consecutively as specified.
Judges
RPV Wendoh
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, False Pretences, Personation, Appellate Review of Sentence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles False Pretences Personation Appellate Review of Sentence

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Kimathi M’Aburia

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive or based on wrong principles.
  2. 2 Whether the sentences for the two counts should run concurrently or consecutively.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's mitigation and health condition warranted interference with the sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial court erred in ordering the sentences for the two counts to run concurrently after imposing fines for both. According to the Penal Code, fines for separate offences should result in consecutive sentences. However, the appellate court recognized that the trial court appeared to intend a total custodial sentence of two years in default of payment of fines. The appellate court therefore adjusted the sentences: for Count I, a fine of Kshs.749,000 or 18 months imprisonment in default; for Count II, a fine of Kshs.200,000 or 6 months imprisonment in default. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, with the custodial term totaling 24 months if fines...

Court Disposition

Appeal on sentence allowed in part; sentences adjusted to run consecutively as specified.

Orders

  • Count I: Fine of Kshs.749,000 or 18 months imprisonment in default.
  • Count II: Fine of Kshs.200,000 or 6 months imprisonment in default.