[2006] KEHC 1698 (KLR)
The court found that the plea entered by the appellant was not unequivocal, as it was unclear whether the plea and the admission of facts related to the charge of stealing stock or handling stolen property. The trial court failed to clarify which charge it was dealing with when entering the conviction. As a result,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1698 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Tumbeine Nyaru; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 19 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction quashed, sentence set aside, appellant acquitted and discharged
- Legal Topics
- Plea Taking, Unequivocal Plea, Stealing Stock, 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
Tumbeine Nyaru
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plea entered by the appellant was unequivocal.
- 2 Whether the conviction could stand in light of the ambiguity in the plea and the charge dealt with.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plea entered by the appellant was not unequivocal, as it was unclear whether the plea and the admission of facts related to the charge of stealing stock or handling stolen property. The trial court failed to clarify which charge it was dealing with when entering the conviction. As a result, the conviction was unsafe and could not stand. The court therefore quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence, acquitting and discharging the appellant since no retrial was sought.
Court Disposition
conviction quashed, sentence set aside, appellant acquitted and discharged
Orders
- The conviction is quashed.
- The sentence is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
Criminal Appeal 19 of 2005
(From Original Conviction(s) and Sentence in Criminal case No. 264 of 2005 of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Makindu –J.M.Munguti SRM on 22/3/2005).
TUMBEINE NYARU………………....................................................……………………..APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………................................................…………………RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
Appellant was charged with stealing stock contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code. In the alternative he was charged with handling stolen property contrary to section 322 (2) of the Penal Code. On being asked to plead in a language which was either English or Swahili as both are indicated to have been used, he simply said “True”. No plea of guilty was entered but facts were stated. The facts would tend to show that the plea – “true” might apply to either of the alternative offences of stealing stock or handling the same. Accused then replied “ Facts are correct”.
Again it is not clear whether it is stealing or handling that the facts are true to. Thereafter is when the trial courts tries to now enter a plea of guilty in the same sentence which enters the convictions. Once more the court does not clarify the charge it was dealing with.
The defence objects to this plea. It submits that the plea is not unequivocal. Mr. O’mirera for the Attorney General agrees with the defence submission.
I have considered this ground of appeal. I agree with both. The plea is not unequivocal. It is not clear either which charge the court dealt with. The conviction cannot therefore stand. It is hereby quashed and the sentence set aside. The appellant who is on bail is acquitted and discharged since no retrial is sought. It is so ordered.
D.A. Onyancha
JUDGE
27/6/06