[2001] KEHC 358 (KLR)
The court found that the conviction was supported by credible and consistent evidence from both police and security officers, and the appellant's claim of being framed was an afterthought without substantiation. However, the court held that the disparity in sentencing between the appellant and his co-accused was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 358 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Simon Maluki; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 115 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.
- Legal Topics
- Preparation to Commit Felony, Sentencing Disparity, Appeal on Sentence, Credibility of Evidence
- 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
Simon Maluki
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction of the appellant for preparation to commit a felony was proper.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was justified and consistent with that of the co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the conviction was supported by credible and consistent evidence from both police and security officers, and the appellant's claim of being framed was an afterthought without substantiation. However, the court held that the disparity in sentencing between the appellant and his co-accused was unjustified as no reasons were provided for the difference. Consequently, the court quashed the original sentence of three years and substituted it with a sentence of two years imprisonment to align with that of the co-accused, effective from the date of conviction by the lower court.
Court Disposition
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.
Orders
- The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
- The sentence of three years imprisonment is quashed and substituted with a sentence of two years imprisonment to run from the date of conviction by the lower court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.115 OF 2001
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.2320 of 2000 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Mombasa – H. Njiru, Esq., R.M.)
SIMON MALUKI……………………………………………APPELLANT
= V E R S U S =
REPUBLIC………………………………………………….RESPONDENT
J U D G E M E N T
The only issue worth considering in this Appeal is the sentence as I find no merits in the Appeal against conviction.
The Appellant was the first of two persons charged with the offence of preparation to commit a felony contrary to Section 308(2) of the Penal Code. The two were caught red-handed in an ambush laid by the Police at Kilindini Port after scampering a perimeter fence and entering the Imported Motor Vehicles Shed of the said Port. It was at about 1. 30 a.m. on 7. 7.00.
The Appellant and his co-Accused had used two ladders to climb over the fence but were spotted by the KPA Security Officer manning the Watchtower (PW.3) who radioed his colleague on the ground PW.2. They alerted the Police who arranged an ambush outside the perimeter wall. Once the Appellant and his co-Accused were inside the shed they cut some ropes tying a canvas on a lorry intending to steal from it. They were then surprised by the guards and the Appellant managed to climb over the fence only to fall in the hands of the Police who lay in ambush. The co-Accused dislocated his leg as he tried to climb over the fence and was arrested inside the shed by KPA Security.
The evidence of the Police and the Security Officers was consistent and was found by the Learned Trial Magistrate to be credible and reliable. I have no reasons to differ from that assessment as the Magistrate saw and heard the witnesses in the witness box. The story manufactured by the Appellant on Appeal that he had disagreed with one of the witnesses and was therefore framed in the charge is certainly a hollow afterthought. The witness was only a Police Officer summoned by KPA Security Guards who saw the Appellant at the scene. Nothing is said by the Appellant about any enemity with those guards or why they should frame him.
The Appeal on conviction is dismissed.
As for sentence, the Appellant was sentenced to serve 3 years imprisonment while the co-Accused was sentenced to serve 2 years. As correctly pointed out by Learned State Counsel Ms Kwena, no reasons were given for such disparity in sentencing. In the event I allow the Appeal on sentence which is quashed. I substitute therefor a term of imprisonment of 2 years to run from the date of conviction by the lower court. To that extent only the Appeal succeeds.
Dated this 26th day of July, 2001.
P.N. WAKI
J U D G E