[2012] KEHC 4597 (KLR)
The High Court held that the sentence imposed by the magistrate was lawful and lenient, given that the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty and the fines imposed were significantly below the statutory maximums. The court emphasized that sentencing is guided by the law, which prescribes the penalties for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 4597 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Abdi Aziz Salao alias Liqe Abdi Adan; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 6 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Plea of Guilty, Immigration Offences
- 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
Abdi Aziz Salao alias Liqe Abdi Adan
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was excessive or unlawful.
- 2 Whether the applicant's financial circumstances should affect the quantum of fine imposed.
- 3 Whether the court should interfere with the sentence imposed by the magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the sentence imposed by the magistrate was lawful and lenient, given that the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty and the fines imposed were significantly below the statutory maximums. The court emphasized that sentencing is guided by the law, which prescribes the penalties for the offences, and that the financial means of the offender are not ordinarily a consideration in determining the quantum of a fine. The court further noted that the applicant did not receive the custodial sentence that could have been imposed in addition to the fine. Consequently, there was no basis for interfering with the sentence, and the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentence imposed by the magistrate is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 6 OF 2012
ABDI AZIZ SALAO alias LIQE ADAN ............................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC .....................................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The applicant Abdi Aziz Salao alias Liqe Abdi Adan was convicted and sentenced for the offences of knowingly being in possession of a passport for which he could not give a proper account contrary to Section 54(1)(d)of theKenya CitizenshipandImmigration Act 2011 and of being unlawfully present in the country contrary to Section 53(1)(i) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act.
2. He was fined Kshs.600,000/= in default to serve 1 year imprisonment in count I, and Kshs.100,000/= in default to serve 6 months imprisonment in count II. The conviction followed his own plea of guilty.
3. In his submission argued on the 15th February 2012 he did not contest the conviction. He however pleaded for the court’s mercy on sentencing telling the court that he is a man of meagre means and cannot raise the fine imposed. Further that the passport that got him into trouble was given to him by brokers in this country. All he was trying to do was to reconnect with his family in the USA.
4. The learned State Counsel Mr. Mulati in opposing the appeal, drew the court’s attention to the fact that the appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty, is serving a lawful sentence, and that in fact, the sentence imposed was quite lenient considering that, the sentence provided by law in count I a fine of is Kshs.5 million, in default five years imprisonment, while the sentence provided in count II is a fine of Kshs.500,000/= or three years imprisonment.
5. I respectfully agree with the learned State Counsel on all three grounds. In imposing fine during sentencing, the courts do not ordinarily consider the financial circumstances of the offender. The fine imposed will be as provided by law, and is usually tailored to fit the offence not the offenders pocket.
6. I do agree with the learned State Counsel Mr. Mulati that, the court in sentencing the appellant was quite lenient, because the law provides that both the fine and a custodial sentence may be handed to the offender simultaneously. In this case the appellant did not receive the second limb of the sentence which would have been custodial sentence, without option of fine, while the fine that was imposed cannot be termed harsh or excessive.
7. For the foregoing reasons I decline to interfere with the sentence as imposed by the learned magistrate. I dismiss the appeal.
SIGNED DATEDandDELIVEREDin open court this 8thday of March2012.
L. A. ACHODE
JUDGE