[2014] KEHC 1091 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court had overlooked any material factor, acted on a wrong principle, or imposed a manifestly excessive sentence. The appellate court, therefore, saw no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court. The appeal against...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 1091 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Stephen Mwalagho; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 11 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, House Breaking, Stealing, Handling Stolen Property
- 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 Mwalagho
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly excessive or based on wrong principles.
- 2 Whether the trial court overlooked any material factors in sentencing the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court had overlooked any material factor, acted on a wrong principle, or imposed a manifestly excessive sentence. The appellate court, therefore, saw no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court. The appeal against sentence was dismissed as lacking merit.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appellant's appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2014
STEPHEN MWALAGHO …………...........................APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
REPUBLIC............................................................. RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant was charged before the Principal Magistrate Court at Voi on the first count with the offence of House Breaking and Stealing Contrary to Section 304(1) (b) as read with Section 279(b) of the Penal Code. He was also charged with an alternative charge of the offence of handling stolen property contrary to Section 322 (1) (2) of the Penal Code. He was convicted on the first count and was sentenced to four (4) years imprisonment for the offence of breaking into a building and two (2) years imprisonment for the offence of stealing. Appellant being aggrieved of his conviction and sentence presented this appeal against both but at the hearing of his appeal he presented new grounds showing that his appeal was only against sentence. He stated in his written submission that he had converted into Christianity and further stated-
“…. when ‘plea of not guilty’ was entered as per the stated charge; I lied, and the word of God is very clear; the liars (sic) would have no room in God’s Kingdom.”
2. Going by the principles set out in the case Trevelyan J in WANJEMA –VS- R (1971)E.A 494 as follows-
“A sentence must in the end depend upon the facts of its own particular case …. An appellate Court should not interfere with the discretion which a trial Court has exercised as to sentence unless it is evident that it overlooked some material factors, took into account some immaterial factor, acted on a wrong principle or the sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case.”
3. I do not find that Appellant’s appeal against sentence has merit at all. Appellant did not show that the trial Court overlooked any material factor or that it acted on the wrong principle or that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Accordingly Appellant’s appeal is hereby dismissed.
Judgment by:-
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
……………………………………. for Appellant
……………………………………. for Respondent
DATED and DELIVERED at VOI this 5TH day of NOVEMBER, 2014.
…………..………………
JUDGE