[2003] KEHC 371 (KLR)
The High Court found that while it is within the trial court's discretion to order sentences to run consecutively or concurrently, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. In this case, the trial magistrate ordered the sentence for Count IV to run consecutively to the sentences for Counts...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] KEHC 371 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Vincent Oduor Odok; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 37 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed_in_part
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Discretion, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Appeal Against 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
Vincent Oduor Odok
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court exercised its discretion judiciously in ordering consecutive sentences without giving reasons.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was harsh and excessive.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that while it is within the trial court's discretion to order sentences to run consecutively or concurrently, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. In this case, the trial magistrate ordered the sentence for Count IV to run consecutively to the sentences for Counts II and III without providing any reasons for this decision. The absence of reasons rendered the exercise of discretion arbitrary and punitive. The appellate court held that, in the absence of justification for consecutive sentences, all sentences should run concurrently. The appeal against sentence was therefore allowed to the extent that all jail terms would run concurrently.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed_in_part
Orders
- All jail terms passed against the appellant to run concurrently with each other.
- The appellant's appeal against sentence succeeds to the stated extent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.37 OF 2001
(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.1474/97 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at NAKURU – H. M. BOMETT (P.M.)
VINCENT ODUOR ODOK………………………….APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC…………………………………………..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The Appellant VINCENT ODUOR ODOK has appealed against the sentence of Nakuru Principal Magistrate in Criminal Case No.1474 of 1997. When the Appellant together with his co-accused were first taken to the court he pleaded not guilty to the charge. That was 1st September, 1997. On the 11th February, 1998, the Appellant informed the court that he wished to change his plea on the charge of Attempted Robbery and Handling Stolen Gun. It was not until 24th February, 1998, that the facts were read to the Appellant and he was sentenced to 3 years Imprisonment in Count 2 and 6 years imprisonment on Count 3. After the case was heard, the Learned Trial Magistrate found the Appellant guilty of Count IV which was a charge of Handling one Stolen Browning Pistol. The court then sentenced him to a further two years imprisonment and ordered that the said sentence was to run consecutively to the previous sentences. No reason was given for that order.
The Learned State Counsel supports the appeal against the sentence on grounds that the Appellant having served 5 years and one month has served enough.
I do agree with the Appellant’s Petition and grounds of appeal number six that the sentence was harsh. There was nothing wrong in ordering a sentence to run consecutively with another term. However, the court must always act judiciously in the exercise of its discretion.
It should not appear to be arbitrary or punitive. By sentencing the Appellant in Counts 2 and 3 to a term of imprisonment and ordering that the said terms run concurrently. Then in same case in a separate Count ordering that the latter term of imprisonment should run consecutively to the former, was arbitrary. No reasons were given to support the exercise of discretion to order for consecutive sentence.
The court was being harsh. Had it given a reason for that this court would not interfere with the exercise of its discretion.
In the circumstances, I will alter the sentence by ordering that all the jail terms passed against the Appellant should run concurrently with each other.
The Appellant’s appeal against sentence succeeds to that extent.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Nakuru this 6th day of March, 2003.
JESSIE LESIIT
JUDGE