Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Criminal Appeal 22 of 2017 (Formerly Eldoret HCCRA 38 of 2012) |
---|---|
Parties: | Nelson Kandie Sumukwo v Republic |
Date Delivered: | 20 Dec 2018 |
Case Class: | Criminal |
Court: | High Court at Kabarnet |
Case Action: | Judgment |
Judge(s): | Edward Muthoga Muriithi |
Citation: | Nelson Kandie Sumukwo v Republic [2018] eKLR |
Advocates: | Ms. Macharia, Assistant DPP for the Respondent |
Case History: | [An appeal from the original conviction and sentence in criminal case no. 539 of 2011 in the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kabarnet delivered on the 24th & 28th day of February, 2014 by Hon. H. Nyaga SPM] |
Court Division: | Criminal |
County: | Nandi |
Advocates: | Ms. Macharia, Assistant DPP for the Respondent |
History Docket No: | criminal case no. 539 of 2011 |
History Magistrate: | Hon. H. Nyaga (SPM) |
History Advocates: | One party or some parties represented |
History County: | Nandi |
Case Outcome: | Appellant discharged under section 35 (1) of the Penal Code |
Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KABARNET
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2017
[FORMERLY ELDORET HCCRA NO 38 OF 2012]
NELSON KANDIE SUMUKWO............................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..........................................................................RESPONDENT
[An appeal from the original conviction and sentence
in criminal case no. 539 of 2011 in the Principal Magistrate’s Court
at Kabarnet delivered on the 24th & 28th day of February, 2014
by Hon. H. Nyaga SPM]
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant was on 24th and 28th February 2012, respectively, convicted and sentenced to 31/2 years imprisonment for the offence of grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code. He filed his petition of appeal on 29/2/2012.
2. Before the appeal could be heard, Counsel for the appellant indicated that the complainant wished to forgive the appellant, and that before the matter could be dealt with on the basis of the reconciliation. The DPP did not object.
3. The Court considered it a constitutional duty in any appropriate matter to promote alternative dispute resolution in terms of Article 159 (2) (c) of the Constitution. Being a personal matter of an assault and grievous harm, I considered it appropriate to allow reconciliation as method of resolution of dispute between the parties, with concurrence of the DPP.
4. The complainant Anthony Bargoge Tarus was examined by the Court on Oath and he confirmed that he had fully recovered from the Assault by the appellant and that he had unconditionally forgiven the appellant and the matter had been settled at the family level by the elders as the accused was his cousin.
DETERMINATION
5. This is a proper case for the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanism of reconciliation as the complainant and the appellant are cousins; the offence is one of personal nature being grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code, and the matter has been settled at the family level by the clan elders.
6. As the DPP agrees, the Court promotes Alternative Dispute Resolution and pursuant to Article 159 of the Constitution, the Court allows the appeal from the sentence pursuant to section 354 (3) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code and alters the nature of the sentence having regard to the reconciliation between the parties.
7. There shall therefore, be an order for discharge of the appellant under section 35 (1) of the Penal Code absolutely and unconditionally, as the matter has now been settled by reconciliation of the parties.
Order accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
EDWARD M. MURIITHI
JUDGE
Appearances:
Appellant in person.
Ms. Macharia, Assistant DPP for the Respondent.