[2013] KEHC 3952 (KLR)
The court found that the charge against the applicants was defective from the outset, as the particulars did not disclose any offence—sitting idly in a public place is not criminal conduct. The prosecution failed to provide facts to support the charge, and the trial court did not ensure the plea was unequivocal....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3952 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Abdalla Lali Mohamed; Applicant: Abdalla Mudhiri Hassan; Applicant: Abdalla Mohamed Karama; Applicant: Hafidh Abdul Mohamed; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Revision Case 58 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence and Conviction
- Outcome
- conviction quashed, sentence set aside, applicants released
- Judges
- GO Shikwe
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Procedure Code Revision, Defective Charge, Freedom of Movement, Right to Mitigation, Constitutionality of Bylaws
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abdalla Lali Mohamed
Applicant
Abdalla Mudhiri Hassan
Applicant
Abdalla Mohamed Karama
Applicant
Hafidh Abdul Mohamed
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence and Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether sitting idly in a public place constitutes a criminal offence under the cited bylaw.
- 2 Whether the charge and plea in the lower court were proper and unequivocal.
- 3 Whether the applicants' constitutional rights, including the right to mitigation and freedom of movement, were violated.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the charge against the applicants was defective from the outset, as the particulars did not disclose any offence—sitting idly in a public place is not criminal conduct. The prosecution failed to provide facts to support the charge, and the trial court did not ensure the plea was unequivocal. Furthermore, the applicants were denied their right to mitigate before sentencing. The bylaw under which the applicants were charged could not override constitutional protections, specifically the right to freedom of movement and residence. As a result, the conviction was quashed and the sentence set aside, with the applicants ordered to be released unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
conviction quashed, sentence set aside, applicants released
Orders
- The conviction is reviewed and quashed.
- The sentence is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Mombasa
Revision Case 58 of 2013 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
800x600
</xml><![endif]
1. ABDALLA LALI MOHAMED
2. ABDALLA MUDHIRI HASSAN
3. ABDALLA MOHAMED KARAMA
4. HAFIDH ABDUL MOHAMED ……. APPLICANTS
- Versus -
REPUBLIC …………….…......... RESPONDENT
RULING
This Court was moved by way of a letter dated 21st February 2013 for purposes of reviewing a sentence of six months imprisonment without an option of fine.
The Applicants were charged with the offence of committing nuisance in a public place contrary to by laws 19(e) of the Mombasa Municipality (General Nuisance) 2010.
The particulars were that on the 5th day of February 2013 at about 5. 30pm at Kibokoni within Mombasa Municipality – Mombasa County, they were found committing nuisance, in that they were found seated iddly without reasonable cause.
There were no facts given by the prosecution to enable the trial Court to appreciate the nature of the offence the Applicants were charged with; principally to ascertain whether the facts disclosed an offence.
The question which comes to mind is whether sitting idly is an offence or whether it’s an attempt to criminalize resting.
Article 39 of the Constitution provides for freedom of movement and residence. No body can legally legislate laws that go contrary to the provisions of the Constitution as such laws are deemed null and void.
A perusal of the lower court proceedings shows that before sentencing the learned trial Magistrate was erhorted to take a stern action by the prosecution, reason being that the Applicants were found in a place which is a den of thugs and robbers.
Before sentencing by the Magistrate the Applicants were not invited to mitigate. At that stage of mitigation they would have explained why they were found at the place there were (found) at the time of arrest.
Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides-
“The High Court may call for an examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any Subordinate Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such Subordinate Court.”
After examining the proceedings of the lower Court, I am satisfied that the plea was not unequivocal and the charge itself was defective in the first place (ab initio). The conviction is reviewed and quashed accordingly, the sentence is set aside.
The Applicants are set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Ruling read and delivered in open Court this 25th day of April, 2013.
M. MUYA
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
State Counsel - Mr. Dzumo
Mr. Egunza – Counsel for the Applicants
Court clerk – Mr. Musundi
[if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if !mso]> <style> st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Times New Roman","serif";} </style> <![endif]