[2007] KEHC 2694 (KLR)
The court held that since the offences for which the appellant was convicted were committed in the same transaction, with the same evidence, at the same location, and handled by the same police station and court, the sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently. The failure of the trial magistrate to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2694 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Stephen Muriuki Macharia; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 130 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal on Sentence Only
- Outcome
- appeal on sentence allowed in part
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences, Stock Theft, Handling Stolen Goods
- 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 Muriuki Macharia
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal on Sentence Only
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences for offences committed in the same transaction should run concurrently or consecutively.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the offences for which the appellant was convicted were committed in the same transaction, with the same evidence, at the same location, and handled by the same police station and court, the sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently. The failure of the trial magistrate to specify this resulted in the sentences running consecutively by default, which was an error. The appeal on sentence was therefore allowed to the extent that the sentences would run concurrently.
Court Disposition
appeal on sentence allowed in part
Orders
- The appellant shall serve 3 years imprisonment on each of the two counts.
- The sentences shall run concurrently and not consecutively.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
Criminal Appeal 130 of 2004
STEPHEN MURIUKI MACHARIA ..….................…….… APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …………………………….............……… RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the original Judgment and Conviction in Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Karatina in Criminal Case No. 982 of 2003 dated 13th February 2004 by Mr. J. N. Nyaga – S.R.M. – Karatina)
J U D G M E N T
When this Appeal came before me for hearing, the Appellant intimated that he would only pursue the Appeal on sentence. In other words the Appellant abandoned his Appeal on conviction. I allowed the Appellant’s Application and accordingly the Appeal proceeded on sentence only.
In support of his Appeal on sentence, the Appellant submitted that all he required was an order that the sentences imposed be ordered to run concurrently instead of consecutively.
Mr. Orinda, learned Principal State Counsel, supported the Appellant’s sentiments. Counsel submitted that the trial court should have ordered that the sentences run concurrently as the offences were committed in the same transaction.
The Appellant was tried on two counts of stealing stock contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code. He also faced an alternative count of Handling stolen goods contrary to section 322(2) of the Penal Code. After a full trial, the Appellant was convicted on he two main counts and sentenced to serve three (3) years imprisonment on each of the two counts. The learned magistrate remained silent on whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively meaning therefore that sentences would run consecutively. It is this order that has offended the Appellant.
It is trite law that offences which are committed in the same transaction should attract a concurrent rather than consecutive sentence. In the instant case, the offences were committed in the same transaction. The evidence regarding the counts was the same. The offences were committed at the same locus in quo and were investigated by the same police station and were handled by the same court. These being the case, the Court upon convicting and sentencing the Appellant ought to have ordered the sentence to run concurrently instead of consecutively. To that limited extent therefore, the Appeal on sentence succeeds. In the end the order of this court on this appeal will be as follows:-
1. The Appellant shall serve 3 years imprisonment on each of the two counts.
2. The sentences shall run concurrently and not consecutively.
Dated at Nyeri this 21st day of May 2007.
M. S. A. MAKHANDIA
JUDGE