[2014] KEHC 8784 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal, as the proceedings were conducted in a language he understood, the facts were properly read to him, and he admitted the offence. However, the trial magistrate erred by imposing a single sentence for two distinct offences under section 306(a) of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 8784 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Victor Ouma Omolo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 5 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Bar Breaking, Sentencing Principles, Guilty Plea, Concurrent Sentences
- 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
Victor Ouma Omolo
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plea of guilty was unequivocal and properly entered.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal, as the proceedings were conducted in a language he understood, the facts were properly read to him, and he admitted the offence. However, the trial magistrate erred by imposing a single sentence for two distinct offences under section 306(a) of the Penal Code. The court held that the appellant should have been sentenced separately for bar breaking and for stealing. Furthermore, the court determined that the trial court overemphasized deterrence at the expense of considering the appellant's personal circumstances, including his status as a first offender and his plea of guilty. Consequently, the appellate court quashed...
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part
Orders
- The original sentence is quashed.
- The appellant is sentenced to two years imprisonment for bar breaking and two years imprisonment for stealing, both sentences to run concurrently from the date of conviction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT AT HOMA BAY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2014
BETWEEN
VICTOR OUMA OMOLO ……………………...……… PLAINTIFF
AND
REPUBLIC …………………………………………. RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 1578 of 2013 of the Chief Magistrates Court at Homa Bay, Hon. P. Mayova dated 20th December 2013)
JUDGMENT
The appellant, VICTOR OUMA OMOLO, was charged and convicted of the offence of Bar breaking and committing a felony contrary to section 306(a) of the Penal Code (Chapter 63 of the Laws of Kenya). The particulars are that on 19th December 2013, at Homa Bay Township within Homa Bay County, he broke into and entered a building, Club 28, a bar of one CON and did steal therefrom 12 spirits wine viceroy and cash amounting to Kshs.3,240/= all valued at Kshs.12,840/= being the property of CON.
He pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. He now appeals against conviction and sentence.
As the first appellate court I have revised the proceedings, and I am satisfied that the proceedings were conducted in a language he understood, the facts were read to him and they disclosed an offence and he consequently pleaded guilty. The plea was therefore unequivocal and it is upheld.
As regards the sentence, the offence under section 306(a) of the Penal Code comprises two offences; That of breaking into a building and that of stealing (see Reuben Nyakango Mose and Another v Republic CA Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 606 of 2010 [2013]eKLR). The accused ought to have been sentenced on both limbs in the circumstances.
The accused was a first offender and he pleaded guilty. According to the sentencing notes, the learned magistrate emphasized the need for a deterrent sentence since the crime was prevalent in the area.The issue of deterrence seems to have been overemphasized over the personal circumstances of the appellant.
In the circumstances, I will interfere with the sentence, quash the same and substitute it with the following:
Limb (a) for bar breaking – 2 years in prison
Limb (b) for stealing – 2 years in prison
Both sentences shall run concurrently from the date of conviction.
DATED and DELIVERED at HOMA BAY this 17th day of July 2014
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
Mr Obach instructed by Orego and Odhiambo Advocates for the appellant.
Ms Andabwa, Prosecution Counsel, instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.