[2015] KEHC 33 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and that the process of recording the plea conformed to the required legal procedure. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant were found to be inapplicable to a conviction based on a guilty plea, as the prosecution is not required to call...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 33 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Wilson Lolima; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kapenguria
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 9 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
- Legal Topics
- Rape Offence, Plea of Guilty, Criminal Appeals, Sentencing, Sexual Offences Act, Conviction Procedure
- 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
Wilson Lolima
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's conviction on a plea of guilty was proper in law.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was legal and appropriate under the Sexual Offences Act.
- 3 Whether the absence of certain witnesses invalidated the conviction based on a guilty plea.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and that the process of recording the plea conformed to the required legal procedure. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant were found to be inapplicable to a conviction based on a guilty plea, as the prosecution is not required to call witnesses or prove the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt in such circumstances. The sentence of 10 years imprisonment was the minimum prescribed by law for the offence of rape under the Sexual Offences Act, and was therefore legal. Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to appeal against the conviction or sentence under section 348 of the Criminal Procedure...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction and sentence of 10 years imprisonment are upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAPENGURIA
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2015
WILSON LOLIMA .............................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ...................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The Appellant herein, WILSON LOLIMA was charged on 1oth of November 2011 with the offence of Rape contrary to section 3(i) (a) (b) (3) of the Sexual Offences Act No.3 of 2006. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted and sentenced to serve 10 years in prison. He was dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence and filed this appeal on 17/7/2014 raising (7) seven grounds in his petition of appeal as follows;
(1) That he pleaded not guilty at trial.
(2) That the trial Magistrate erred in law and facts by convicting him in the absence of crucial witnesses.
(3) That the trial Magistrate erred in law and facts by convicting the appellant in absence of the complainant.
(4) That the trial Magistrate erred in law and facts by convicting him when the elements of the alleged offence were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(5) That the trial Magistrate erred in law and facts by convicting him without sufficient evidence to warrant a finding of guilty.
(6)That the trial Magistrate erred in law and facts by relying on incredible witnesses and
(7)That he was to raise more grounds during the hearing of the appeal.
I heard this appeal on 22/10/20. 15 and the appellant to his stated grounds, only added that crucial witnesses namely Selina, Loise and Kitemo were not heard.
Mr. Thuo who appeared for the State opposed the appeal relying on provisions of section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that;-
“No appeal shall be allowed In the case of an accused person who has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on that plea by a subordinate court, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence."
Mr. Thuo averred that the 10 years the appellant was sentenced to is the minimum allowed in law and is legal. On the ground, he urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
Though the Appellant did not raise an issue of the manner of recording and the steps which were taken in the plea of guilty, I have re-evaluated the process and have confirmed it well conforms with the procedure laid out in the case of Adan Vs Republic (1973} EALR 445. His filed grounds of appeal connotes of a case that proceeded to full hearing and not one determined on a plea of guilty. The said grounds must have been adopted from such a case and wrongly used in this one. When an accused pleads guilty the prosecution have no legal duty to call witnesses and establish each and every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. If the appellant expected otherwise then he is wrong.
The plea of guilty is unequivocal and the sentence of 10 years imprisonment of which he is serving is legal. As rightly stated by Mr. Thuo, the learned State Prosecutor, under section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he is not entitled to an appeal.
I so find and dismiss the appeal, while I uphold the conviction and the sentence.
STEPHEN GITHINJI J
25/11/2015