[2022] KEHC 1312 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant, being a first offender and a layman who may not have appreciated the gravity of the offences, deserved a review of his sentence. Although he did not mitigate at trial, he raised mitigation on appeal, including his family responsibilities. The court determined that the original...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 1312 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Touwa Olelei; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Makueni
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E013 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- sentence varied and reduced
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Stealing Stock, Mitigation of Sentence
- 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
Touwa Olelei
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 7 years imprisonment imposed on the appellant was harsh and excessive.
- 2 Whether the appellant, as a first offender and layman, deserved a non-custodial sentence or a reduction of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant, being a first offender and a layman who may not have appreciated the gravity of the offences, deserved a review of his sentence. Although he did not mitigate at trial, he raised mitigation on appeal, including his family responsibilities. The court determined that the original sentence of 7 years was excessive in the circumstances and reduced it to 4 years imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The court did not find sufficient grounds to grant a non-custodial sentence, but considered the mitigation sufficient to warrant a reduction in the custodial term.
Court Disposition
sentence varied and reduced
Orders
- The sentence imposed by the trial court is set aside.
- The appellant will serve four (4) years imprisonment on each of the two counts concurrently, totaling four (4) years imprisonment from the date of the original sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MAKUENI
HCCRA NO. E013 OF 2021
TOUWA OLELEI..........................................................APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
REPUBLIC.................................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence of Hon. C. A Mayamba in Kilungu Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No.735 of 2019 pronounced on 30th October, 2019).
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant herein having been convicted of two counts stealing stock contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code (cap.75), and sentenced to serve concurrent sentences of 6 years imprisonment in count 1 and 7 years imprisonment in count 2, has now come to this court appealing against sentence only.
2. In his submissions, he stated that the total sentence of 7 years imprisonment imposed on him is harsh and excessive as he has a family with five school going children and is a first offender. He has asked for a non-custodial sentence.
3. The learned Assistant Director of Public Prosecution Mr. Tanui left to the court to consider the appropriate sentence.
4. I note that the appellant was charged jointly with four (4) others in count 1 in respect of theft of a bull valued at Kshs.80,000/=. He was also charged alone with a second count of stealing four heifers valued at Kshs.120,000/=.
5. He was the only one who pleaded guilty to both charges, and was convicted on his own plea. Before sentencing, he was recorded as being a first offender, but elected to say nothing in mitigation. He has however come to this court and raised his mitigation.
6. In my view, being a layman, the appellant might not have been appreciated of the gravity of the offences. He sold the cows to someone, but it is not clear if the cows were returned to the owner.
7. Having considered the mitigation which the appellant has raised on appeal, and being a layman, I am persuaded to review the sentence, and reduce it to four (4) years imprisonment on each of the two charges. I don’t consider that the appellant deserves a non-custodial sentence.
8. For the above reasons, I set aside the sentence imposed and order that the appellant will instead serve four (4) years imprisonment on each of the two counts concurrently, making a total of four (4) years imprisonment from the date that he was sentenced by the trial court.
DELIVERED, SIGNED & DATED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022, IN OPEN COURT AT MAKUENI.
...............................
GEORGE DULU
JUDGE