[2019] KEHC 10570 (KLR)
The appellate court found that the sentence of five years imprisonment, being approximately one-third of the statutory maximum of 14 years for handling stolen property, was not excessive. The trial court had considered the applicant's mitigation. There was no evidence that the trial court considered extraneous...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 10570 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Solomon Wafula Khisa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 53 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Handling Stolen Property, Appellate Review 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
Solomon Wafula Khisa
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of five years imprisonment for handling stolen property was excessive or warranted interference by the appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court found that the sentence of five years imprisonment, being approximately one-third of the statutory maximum of 14 years for handling stolen property, was not excessive. The trial court had considered the applicant's mitigation. There was no evidence that the trial court considered extraneous factors or failed to consider relevant ones. Therefore, there was no basis for the appellate court to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH CORT OF KENYA
AT BUNGOMA
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2018
SOLOMON WAFULA KHISA....................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS.
REPUBLIC................................................................................RESPONDENT
[An appeal from Conviction and Sentence In Original Bungoma CMCR. No. 311/2014
delivered on 2/4/2015 by Hon. R.B. Ngetich – Chief Magistrate]
RULING.
The appellant Solomon Wafula Khisa was charged with offence of robbery with violence Contrary Section 296(2) of the Penal Code. He also faced an alternative charge of handling stolen property Contrary to Section 322(2) of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that on the 11th day of February, 2014 at Bungoma Township within Bungoma County, otherwise that in the Course of stealing dishonestly detained one mobile phone make Nokia Asha RM 761 IMEI No.356354/05/131486/3 valued at Kshs.6,000/= knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property.
After full hearing, the learned trial magistrate found appellant guilty of the alternative charge of handling stolen property and sentenced him to serve five (5) years imprisonment. Dissatisfied with conviction and sentenced the appellant presented this appeal. The appellant when he appeared before this court on 25. 10. 2018 informed court that he was not challenging the conviction but only asked that this court review the sentence of five (5) years imprisonment imposed. He submitted that he has a family which depends on him and has learnt valuable skills in prison.
Mr. Oimbo for the state opposed the application for review of sentence. He submitted that the offence appellant was charged with, handling stolen property Contrary to Section 322(2) of the Penal Code attracted a maximum sentence of 14 years but appellant was sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment, which sentence was lenient.
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence of handling stolen property Contrary to Section 322(2) of the Penal Code. Section 322(2) Penal Code provides; A person who handles stolen goods is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment with hard labour of a term not exceeding fourteen years.
The section under which appellant was convicted attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years. He was sentenced to serve (5) years Imprisonment being almost 1/3 of the maximum sentence. The court considered his mitigation which he informed the court on 2/4/2015. The issue of sentencing is at the discretion of the trial court. The appellate Court can only interfere with the sentence if it is demonstrated that the trial court considered extraneous factors or did not consider relevant factors; or that the sentence is so excessive as to amount to a mis-directions on objectives of sentencing.
In this case the appellant was sentenced to almost only 1/3 of the maximum imprisonment term. I do not find the sentence to be excessive. This appeal is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Bungoma this 24th day ofJanuary, 2019.
S.N. RIECHI
JUDGE.