[2007] KECA 194 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the sentence of ten years imprisonment for manslaughter was not manifestly excessive or harsh given the circumstances of the case. The appellant had pleaded guilty to killing the deceased in a fit of spousal jealousy, armed herself with a lethal weapon, and intended to cause serious...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KECA 194 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Teresia Wanjiku; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 38 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- AM Githinji
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Sentencing Principles, Mitigation, Provocation, Guilty Plea
- 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
Teresia Wanjiku
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of ten years imprisonment for manslaughter was manifestly excessive or harsh.
- 2 Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the sentence of ten years imprisonment for manslaughter was not manifestly excessive or harsh given the circumstances of the case. The appellant had pleaded guilty to killing the deceased in a fit of spousal jealousy, armed herself with a lethal weapon, and intended to cause serious harm. The trial judge considered the appellant's mitigation but found a custodial sentence warranted. The appellate court found no reason to interfere with the trial judge's exercise of discretion in sentencing, citing established principles that appellate intervention is only justified where a sentence is manifestly excessive or inadequate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentence of ten years imprisonment is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
Criminal Appeal 38 of 2006
TERESIA WANJIKU ……....……APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC …………………….RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a sentence of the High Court of Kenya Nakuru (Mr. Justice L. Kimaru) dated 13th May, 2005In H.C.CR.C. NO. 59 2003)
*************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
This is an appeal from the judgment of L. Kimaru J. in which he sentenced the appellant herein Teresia Wanjiku to serve ten (10) years imprisonment. She had pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Esther Mumbi. The learned Judge stated that she deserved a custodial sentence.
The facts were summarized by the learned Judge as follows:-
“I have considered the facts of this case. I have also considered the mitigation of the accused. The accused killed the deceased in a fit of spousal jealousy. She thought that the deceased who was a married woman herself was having an affair with her husband. She waylaid her as she was coming back to her home after serving dinner to her husband. The accused was armed with a panga which is a lethal weapon in the hands of a person who has intent to harm. The accused intended to physically harm the deceased. The subsequent death of the deceased was not therefore unexpected. I do find that the accused intended to seriously harm deceased. For that reason she deserves a custodial sentence. Having noted her mitigation I sentence her to serve ten (10) years imprisonment.”
Before this Court the appellant appeared in person. The grounds for her appeal were stated by her as follows:-
“1. That I pleaded guilty to the charge.
2. That the sentence of ten (10) years is too harsh and excessive.
3. That I am a mother of 3 children of which they all depend on me for their daily living.
4. That the deceased provoked me for she had alone affair with my husband.
5. That I did not intend to kill the deceased.
6. The my parents who are currently taking care of my children are peasant farmers who are aged and thus unable to cater for my children wellbeing.
7. I pray for leniency.
8. I wish to be present during the hearing of my appeal.”
In Diego v. Republic [1985] KLR 621 in a judgment of Todd J. and O’Kubasu, J.(as he then was) in the High Court held as follows:-
“5. An appellate Court should not interfere with the discretion by a trial Judge as to sentence except in such cases where it appears that in assessing the sentence which is manifestly inadequate or manifestly excessive. The appellate Court would not interfere with the sentence imposed on the appellant.”
We have come to a similar conclusion and do not consider that we should interfere with the sentence ordered by the learned Judge. We hereby order that the appeal be dismissed.
Dated and delivered at Nakuru this 25th day of September, 2007.
P. K. TUNOI
………………………
JUDGE OF APPEAL
E. M. GITHINJI
…………………………
JUDGE OF APPEAL
W. S. DEVERELL
………………………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR