Paul Lasurmati v Republic [2017] KEHC 386 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.33 OF 2017

PAUL LASURMATI ..................................................APPELLANT

VERSUS

REPUBLIC ............................................................RESPONDENT

(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.456 of  2016 of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Isiolo)

JUDGEMENT

The Appellant was charged with the offence of stealing contrary to section 275 of the Penal Code.  The particulars of the offence are that the appellant on the 3rd August 2016 at about 6. 00pm at Archers Post trading centre in Samburu County within Rift valley region stole one meko gas valued at Ksh.8,000/= the property of Erick Mbaabu.

The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentence to serve three years imprisonment. In his grounds of appeal the appellant states that the sentence is excessive and harsh, that his mitigation was not considered and that the trial court erred by ordering that the sentence is to run consecutively. The appellant submitted that his mitigation was comprehensive and shows that he is responsible to other people.  The sentence will affect his little children and elderly parents who depend on him.  Mr. Odhiambo, prosecution counsel opposed the appeal.  Counsel submitted that the appellant pleaded guilty to both the  charge and the facts. The appellant is a habitual offender who had three other matters before court.  The sentence is reasonable.

The record of the trial court show that the appellant was arrested on the 18th of August 2016 and arraigned in court on the 22nd of August 2016.  The charge was read over to the appellant in Kiswahili language and the appellant pleaded guilty.  The facts were also read to the appellant and he also pleaded guilty.  The conviction is based on the appellant’s own guilty plea.  It is therefore proper. The appellant did not mitigate after the conviction despite having been given the opportunity to do so.  The contention that his mitigation was not considered is not true.  The appellant was only charged with one count and was sentenced to serve three years imprisonment.  There is nothing like the sentence running consecutively.  It appears that the appellant is a petty offender. He had two other criminal matters namely Cr. No. 457/16 and 458/16. I do find that the three years imprisonment is sufficient period for the appellant to retrace his steps and cool off his attitude in prison.

In the end I do find that the appeal lacks merit and is hereby disallowed.

DATED AND SIGNED AT MARSABIT THIS …….DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017

SAID CHITEMBWE

JUDGE

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017

A. MABEYA

JUDGE