Simon Marden Lepoyari v Republic [2013] KEHC 435 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH  COURT  OF  KENYA  AT  NAKURU

HCRA 49  OF  2012

SIMON  MARDEN  LEPOYARI ………………….APPELLANT

VERSUS

REPUBLIC  …………………………………RESPONDENT

( BEING  AN  APPEAL FROM  ORIGINAL CONVICTION AND  SENTENCE  IN  P.M   CRIMINAL  CASE  NO.417 OF  2011 BY  HON  A  B  MONGARE  , SRM  DATED  1/3/12)

J U D G   E M E N T

1. The appellant was  charged with  three   counts. The first  count was for the  offence  of being  Drunk  and  disorderly in a  public place  contrary to  section 33(1) as read with section 33(2) of the Alcoholic Drinks Act  No.4  of 2011, the  second  count  for  resisting   lawful  arrest by  police  contrary to section 253 (b) of the  penal code and   the  third  count for  malicious  Damage to property contrary to  section 339(1)  of the  penal  code.

2. The appellant pleaded guilty on all three  counts  and was convicted. Based on   a  probation  report  presented in court, the  appellant  was  sentenced  to two  years’ probation and  in addition  was to  attend  the  Drug and  Alcohol  rehabilitation  program  at St   Martins.

3. The trial  court  subsequently  cancelled  his  probation  sentence, as  he  had  breached the  probation order by  committing  another  offence,  robbery  with  violence.  He was  sentenced  to  3 months  imprisonment,  on the first  count,  1  year  imprisonment on the  second count and  2  years  imprisonment on  the  3rd  count.

4. The  appellant  being  dissatisfied  with the  decision of  Hon A.B Mongare Senior Resident Magistrate,  Nyahururu preferred this  appeal and  listed the  following   grounds  of  appeal  in his  memorandum of  appeal.

A. GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4. (i) The  magistrate  convicted  him  without  giving  him  time to  explain  why  he  did  not  report   to the  probation officer.

(ii) His  wife  had   polio and  he  was the   only  one to  take  care  of  her- thus  the  reason for  not  going  to the  probation  officer.

(iii) The sub chief  was aware  of the  issue  and  had  even confirmed  he  would  inform the  probation  officer.

(iv) The sentence was too harsh.

B.  AMENDED   GROUNDS OF  APPEAL

The appellant   later amended his grounds of appeal

to read as follows:

The  learned  Magistrate  erred   in  law  and  fact  by  convicting  him  with  same  Articles  of the criminal  procedure  code  which  did  not  correspond  with  his  case.

The  learned  magistrate  convicted  him  in law  and  fact  by  not  following  the  fair  proceedings  and  a fair   trial.

The  learned  magistrate  convicted  him and  did  not  take  into  consideration the  alternatives  and  contradictions  of  dates  at the time  of the crime.

That the  learned trial  Magistrate  erred  in law  and fact by  convicting  him  with  no exhibits  having  been availed  in court.

6. The appellant was   unrepresented and did not wish  to  add  anything  to  his submissions. Mr  Marete, counsel  for the state  did  not  oppose the  appeal. He stated that the  sentence  was too  harsh and  urged court to  look at the circumstances of the case and  sentence. He advocated for a custodial sentence and added that the  appellant  was  very remorseful.

7. Under  section  348  of the  Criminal  Procedure  Code, Cap 75, a  person  who  pleads  guilty, is  convicted  and  sentenced  on his  own  plea of guilty,  can  only  appeal  on  grounds  of either  legality  or  extent of the  sentence.

8. An appellant court can interfere  with the  sentenceimposed if the  sentence  is found to be   harsh  and excessive.  Refer to the case of  Wanjema  Vs   Republic

(1971) E.A   493.

9. This court  notes that the  trial  magistrate when sentencing  the  Appellant,  did  not  state  how  the  sentences  were to run  as required  under  section 14  of  the  criminal  procedure  code.

10. Sentences must run concurrently or consecutively. So  far  the  appellant  has  served  1  year  8 months  upto October 2013.  If  the   sentence  was to run concurrently he  would  be left  with less than  4  months  if  granted  remission. If the sentence was to run consecutively, he would have served half the sentence. The appellant was arrested with being   drunk and disorderly and   resisting arrest.

11. This court will exercise   its  discretion  and  sentence the  appellant   to the term  already  served. The  appeal against  sentence  is allowed to  that  extent  and  he  is released from prison forthwith unless  otherwise  lawfully held.

Dated signed and delivered  at  Nakuru this 15th day  of  November  2013.

L  N  WAITHAKA

JUDGE

PRESENT

Simon Marden  Lepoyari- Appellant

Mr   Marete  for the state

Emmanuel   Maelo: Court clerk

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE