[1994] KECA 74 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal found that the significant disparity between the appellant's sentence and that of his co-accused, both convicted on the same facts, constituted a grave anomaly and an error in principle in sentencing. The Court noted that the High Court judge who heard the appellant's appeal was not made aware of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1994] KECA 74 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Wycliff Shiuka Wahome; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 11 of 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the High Court
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part (sentence only)
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Disparity, Robbery Offences, Appeals on 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
Wycliff Shiuka Wahome
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive compared to that imposed on a co-accused convicted on the same facts.
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal can interfere with a lawful sentence where there is an error in principle.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal found that the significant disparity between the appellant's sentence and that of his co-accused, both convicted on the same facts, constituted a grave anomaly and an error in principle in sentencing. The Court noted that the High Court judge who heard the appellant's appeal was not made aware of the reduction in sentence for the co-accused, which likely affected the outcome. The Court held that such disparity was unjustified and that sentences should be consistent for co-accused unless there are distinguishing factors. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal against sentence, set aside the original sentence, and substituted it with a sentence identical to that of...
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part (sentence only)
Orders
- The sentence of 10 years' imprisonment with 10 strokes is set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment with 5 strokes, effective from the date of the original sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAKURU
( Coram: Gachuhi, Cockar & Tunoi JJ A )
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 1994
BETWEEN
WYCLIFF SHIUKA WAHOME.............................................................APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC.........................................................................................RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Mr Justice D M Rimita) dated 19th November 1993,
in
HCCRA No 269 of 1991)
*******************************
JUDGMENT
The appellant together with one James Kariuki Mwati (A1) (hereafter referred to as J K Mwati) and one Joseph Mureithi Mburu (A3) was charged with offence of robbery contrary to section 296 (1) of the Penal Code J K Mwati (A1) and the appellant both pleaded guilty to the offence, admitted the facts as stated by the prosecutor, and were thereafter convicted on plea. After listening to their pleas in mitigation the trial magistrate sentenced each of them to a period of 10 years’ imprisonment with corporal punishment of 10 strokes of the cane on 18th February, 1991. J K Mwati appealed to the High Court against the sentence and the appellant appealed to the High Court against conviction and sentence.
For some reason which is not clear from the files of the two lower courts, the two appeals were not heard together. Tanui, J heard the appeal filed by J K Mwati (A1) and on 18th October, 1991, set aside the sentence passed by the magistrate and substituted it with a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with 5 strokes of the cane.
The appeal filed by the appellant was heard by Rimita, J on 19th November, 1993, who on the same day dismissed the appeal against both conviction and sentence. Thus the sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment with 10 strokes remained unchanged in the case of the appellant. In his grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal against sentence the appellant referred to the afore-described reduction of prison sentence and the corporal punishment in the case of his co-accused.
Section 361(1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code has prescribed that on a second appeal the Court of Appeal shall not hear an appeal against a lawful sentence except where the same has been enhanced by the High Court. However, the Court of Appeal has interfered with a sentence where it is satisfied that there is an error in principle involved in the imposition of the sentence. The position here now is that whereas J K Mwati (A1) is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and 5 strokes, the appellant, charged with same offence and convicted on the same facts by the same magistrate will serve a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment and 10 strokes. Such an inordinate disparity in the two sentences is a grave anomaly as well as is evidence of an error in principle in the imposition of sentences. We have been informed that in the appellant’s case, Rimita, J had not been made aware of the result of the other appeal. We are certain that if he had been made aware of Tanui’s decision, his own decision on the sentence would have thereby been affected very much in favour of the appellant. In the result, we allow the appeal against the sentence which we now set aside and substitute it with a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with 5 strokes with effect from the date the trial magistrate imposed his sentence. We would also observe here that to avoid such anomalies in future, it would be of great benefit if the registries concerned and the Attorney General’s office ensure that appeals filed by all the co-accused are heard together at the same time by the same 1st appellate judge(s).
Dated and Delivered at Nakuru this 25th day of February 1994.
J.M.GACHUHI
................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.M.COCKAR
.................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
P.K.TUNOI
...................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of
the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR