REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NANYUKI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 10 OF 2020 LKAPURE LENARESHA...................................APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC.....................................................RESPONDENT (From original Sentence in Maralal PM Criminal Case No 503 of 2017 – R K Koech, PM) JUDGMENT 1. The Appellant herein, LKAPURES LENARESHA, was convicted after trial in Count II of the charge of being in possession of ammunition contrary to section 89(1) of the Penal Code. The charge in Count I was withdrawn by the complainant. On 21/12/2017 he was sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment. He has appealed only against that sentence. He stated to this court that he was satisfied with the conviction. 2. The punishment prescribed under section 89(1) of the Penal Code, once the trial court decides that the accused deserves a custodial sentence, is imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years and not more than fifteen years. The Appellant got the minimum. 3. With the decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya in the now notorious Muruatetu case, no doubt this court would be entitled to revisit a mandatory sentence meted out by a trial court if appropriate to do so. In the present case, though the Appellant was found in possession of two rounds of .303 mm ammunition, normally fired from a rifle, everyone knows what harm such a bullet fired from an appropriate rifle could cause. I therefore do not consider that the sentence of seven years imprisonment in this case was manifestly harsh or excessive. It was well-deserved. 4. I find no merit in this appeal against sentence. It is hereby dismissed. It is so ordered. DATED AND SIGNED AT NANYUKI THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY 2021 H P G WAWERU JUDGE DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY 2021
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.