Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Thomas Otieno Otieno v Republic

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT HOMA BAY MIICSELLENEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 12 OF 2017 THOMAS OTIENO OTIENO…………………....……..APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC………………………………….........….RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant THOMAS OTIENO OTIENO alias OGOGA was convicted for the offence of burglary and stealing contrary to section 304 (2) as read with section 279 (b) of the Penal Code. He committed the offence on 24th December in KOTHITHA village and he stole items worth Kshs 28,000/from the house of BONIFACE NYAILA ACHIEN’G. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve 3 years for burglary and 4 years for stealing in Homa Bay CM Criminal Case No 84 of 2015. The sentences were to run concurrently. 2. He had been separately tried and convicted in Homa Bay CMCriminal Case NO 85 of 2015 R v THOMAS OTIENO OTIENO alias OGOGA for the offence of burglary and stealing on 3rd January 2015 at KOMOLO village, from the house of JOHN ALEX GENGA where he stole assorted household goods and clothes whose total value was given as Kshs522,500 where he was sentenced to serve 1 year. The matters were heard by two different magistrates, so none was aware of the other matter and upon conviction the court record does not reflect that it was made aware that he had a previous conviction. He has urged the court to direct that the sentences in the two matters run concurrently, which request was not opposed by MR OLUOCH on behalf of the DPP. I do not think the request is unreasonable and I allow it. This means the sentence in CRC No 84 of 2015 and CRC No 85 of 2015 shall run concurrently. His prayer is thus allowed. Delivered and dated this 17th day of August 2017 at Homa Bay H. A. OMONDI JUDGE

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.