[2013] KEHC 1392 (KLR)
The court found that the particulars in the charge were adequate and sufficiently disclosed the offence of grievous harm, enabling the appellant to understand and answer the charge. The court further held that the right to legal representation at state expense did not accrue in this case because the appellant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 1392 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Solomon Kiplangat Bett; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 33 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
- Judges
- B Ongaya
- Legal Topics
- Grievous Harm, Plea of Guilty, Defective Charge, Right to Legal Representation
- 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
Solomon Kiplangat Bett
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the charge as drawn was defective for lack of sufficient particulars.
- 2 Whether the appellant was denied the right to legal representation under Article 50(2)(g) and (h) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the particulars in the charge were adequate and sufficiently disclosed the offence of grievous harm, enabling the appellant to understand and answer the charge. The court further held that the right to legal representation at state expense did not accrue in this case because the appellant pleaded guilty and there was no trial. There was no evidence of prejudice suffered by the appellant in the trial court. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were upheld as lawful and proper.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2013
(Being an Appeal Against the Original Conviction and Sentence by the Honourable S.Soita, Acting Chief Magistrate at Kericho in Criminal Case No. 1330 of 2013 in the Judgment Delivered on 24. 07. 2013)
SOLOMON KIPLANGAT BETT................................APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
REPUBLIC...............................................................RESPONDENT
(Before Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya Thursday 24th October, 2013)
JUDGMENT
The appellant is Solomon Kiplangat Bett. He was charged with the offence of grievous harm contrary to section 70 of the Penal Code. He was convicted as charged upon his own plea of guilty and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
The appellant has appealed against the conviction and sentence. To urge the appellant’s case, Mr. Koech Advocate submitted to this court as follows:
The charge as drawn was defective because it did not provide for the particulars. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the material particulars that were missing in the charge included the details of the grievous harm alleged. The particulars in the charge were stated thus, “On 22nd day of April 2013 at about 8. 00am at Kipsigor Village in Kericho District within Kericho County, (the appellant) unlawfully did grievous harm to Hellen Chepkirui Rotich.”This court has considered the charge and particulars of the offence as stated and finds that the particulars were adequate and they disclosed the offence that confronted the appellant and which he was to answer to in self defence. The court further finds that detailed particulars were read to the accused, his plea taken before the conviction and sentence were pronounced by the honourable trial court. They were explained in the appellant’s Kipsigis language. Thus, the appellant did not suffer any prejudice before the trial court and this court finds as much.
The second ground of appeal as submitted is that the appellant was not promptly informed about his right to legal representation and assigned legal representation by the state as per Article 50(2) (g) and (h) of the Constitution respectively. Counsel for respondent submitted that the appellant pleaded guilty and therefore the rights as cited never accrued because there was no trial at which the accused would have been represented by an advocate. This court agrees with submissions made for the respondent that the right to legal representation at the trial did not accrue in circumstances whereby the accused had pleaded guilty as charged.
This court has considered the submissions and perused the record of the trial court. There is no reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offence.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, the conviction is upheld and the appellant shall serve 10 years imprisonment as sentenced by the honourable trial court.
Signed, dated and delivered in court at Kericho this Thursday, 24th October, 2013.
BYRAM ONGAYA
JUDGE