[2019] KEHC 12109 (KLR)
The court held that voluntary intoxication is not a defence to the offence of attempted arson, especially where the accused is aware of the effects of alcohol on his conduct. The sentence imposed was within the statutory limits and thus reasonable. However, the court found merit in the applicant's request that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 12109 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Enzoya; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 238 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- Application partially allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Attempted Arson, Sentencing Principles, Remand Period Credit
- 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
Stephen Enzoya
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's intoxication at the time of the offence constitutes a valid defence to attempted arson.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was reasonable and in accordance with the law.
- 3 Whether the period spent in remand should be considered as part of the applicant's sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that voluntary intoxication is not a defence to the offence of attempted arson, especially where the accused is aware of the effects of alcohol on his conduct. The sentence imposed was within the statutory limits and thus reasonable. However, the court found merit in the applicant's request that the period spent in remand prior to sentencing should be credited towards his sentence. Accordingly, while the sentence itself was maintained, the court ordered that it should be deemed to have commenced from the date the applicant was first remanded, 1st May, 2018.
Court Disposition
Application partially allowed.
Orders
- The sentence imposed on the applicant is maintained.
- The period the applicant was in remand prior to sentencing shall be considered as part of the sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 238 OF 2019
STEPHEN ENZOYA................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC............................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Applicant was charged with attempted arson contrary to Section 333 of the Penal Code. He attempted to burn the house he had rented belonging to the complainant, Jackline Muharia on 1st May, 2018.
2. His plea that he committed the offence when he was drunk cannot be an excuse. If he knows that alcohol compels him to commit an offence, he must desist from it.
3. Under Section 333 of Penal Code, the offence carries a penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment. Hence, the penalty was reasonable in the circumstances.
4. I however partially allow the application with an order that the period the Applicant was in remand prior to the sentencing shall be considered to constitute part of the sentence. Hence, I maintain the sentence but the same shall start running form 1st May, 2018
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi This 26th day of November, 2019.
G.W.NGENYE-MACHARIA
JUDGE.
In the presence of;
1. Applicant in person.
2. M/s Akunja for the Respondent.