[2020] KEHC 4777 (KLR)
The appellate court found that the trial magistrate imposed very lenient sentences for the offences of forgery, uttering a false document, and obtaining money by false pretence. There was no evidence that the trial court acted on a wrong principle, overlooked any material factor, or that the sentences were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 4777 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Stephen Onyango Odhiambo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 3 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Forgery, Uttering False Document, Obtaining by False Pretence, Sentencing Principles
- 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 Onyango Odhiambo
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant for forgery, uttering a false document, and obtaining money by false pretence.
- 2 Whether the appellate court should interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court found that the trial magistrate imposed very lenient sentences for the offences of forgery, uttering a false document, and obtaining money by false pretence. There was no evidence that the trial court acted on a wrong principle, overlooked any material factor, or that the sentences were manifestly excessive. Therefore, there was no justification for the appellate court to interfere with the sentences imposed. The appeal was found to lack merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2020
STEPHEN ONYANGO ODHIAMBO...........................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC....................................................................RESPONDENT
(From the original conviction and sentence in Criminal case No. 2184 of 2016 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Busia by Hon. R. N. Ng’ang’a–Resident Magistrate)
JUDGMENT
1. Stephen Onyango Odhiambo, the appellant herein, was convicted in three counts. In count two he was charged with an offence of forgery contrary to section 350 of the Penal Code, in count three the offence was uttering a false document contrary to section 353 of the Penal Code, while in count four, the offence was obtaining money by false pretence contrary to section 313 of the Penal Code.
2. The particulars of the offences were that on 24th April 2014 at Busia township, in Busia County with intent to defraud forged a Rental Tenancy Agreement purporting it to be a genuine Rental Tenancy agreement between Steven Onyango Odhiambo and Samuel Muhokho Namenge. He subsequently uttered the false document on 30th April 2016. On the same day, he obtained Kshs. 213,000/= from Eliakim Okoth pretending that he would rent to him a house at Busia Municipality plot No. 42, a fact he knew was not true.
3. The appellant was sentenced as follows:
In count two, to pay a fine of Kshs. 50,000/= or in default to serve six (6) months imprisonment In count three he was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 50,000/=or in default to serve six(6) months imprisonment, while in count four (4) the fine was Kshs.100,000/= or in default to serve one year imprisonment. This is the sentence he is challenging.
4. An appellate court would only interfere with the sentence of trial court where some sufficient circumstances exist. These circumstances were spelled out in the case of in the case of Nelson vs. Republic [1970] E.A. 599 as follows:
The principles upon which an appellate court will act in exercising its jurisdiction to review sentences are fairly established. The court does not alter a sentence on the mere ground that if the members of the court had been trying the appellant, they might have passed a somewhat different sentence and it will not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by a trial Judge unless as was said in James v Rex (1950), 18 EACA 147, it is evident that the Judge has acted upon some wrong principle or overlooked some material factor! To this, we would also add third criterion, namely, that the sentence is manifestly excessive in view of the circumstances of the case. R v Shershewsity (1912) C.CA 28 T.LR 364.
5. In the instant case the learned trial magistrate imposed very lenient sentences for the offences. I have no reason to interfere with the same.
From the foregoing analysis, I find that the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
DELIVERED and SIGNED at BUSIA this 25th Day of June, 2020
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE