[2017] KEHC 1887 (KLR)
The court declined to exercise its criminal revision jurisdiction because the age assessment report presented was insufficiently detailed, lacked information on the methodology used, and was signed by an unidentified person without stated qualifications. The court found that, in the absence of reliable and credible...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1887 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Abdullahi Araye Weheliye; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 4 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application for revision dismissed
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Presence, Sentencing of Minors, Age Assessment, 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
Abdullahi Araye Weheliye
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant, having pleaded guilty to being unlawfully present in Kenya, was entitled to sentencing as a minor under Section 191 of the Children Act.
- 2 Whether the age assessment report provided sufficient basis for the court to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction and alter the sentence imposed by the Magistrate's Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to exercise its criminal revision jurisdiction because the age assessment report presented was insufficiently detailed, lacked information on the methodology used, and was signed by an unidentified person without stated qualifications. The court found that, in the absence of reliable and credible evidence establishing the applicant's minority, it could not interfere with the sentence imposed by the Magistrate's Court. The court emphasized that visual assessment of age is unreliable, especially where the age is borderline. The application for revision was therefore dismissed, but the applicant was informed that he could pursue an appeal if he so wished.
Court Disposition
application for revision dismissed
Orders
- The request for review of the sentence is dismissed.
- The applicant is at liberty to appeal the decision of the Magistrate's Court if he so wishes.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT GARISSA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 4 OF 2017
ABDULLAHI ARAYE WEHELIYE…..APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………….……..RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant Abdullahi Araye Weheliye was charged in the Chief Magistrate’s court at Garissa together with 4 others with being unlawfully present in Kenya contrary to Section 53(1) (j) as read with Section 53 (2) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act. The particulars of the offence were that on 18th September, 2017 at Dagahaley area in Dadaab Sub-county within Garissa County being Somali national was found unlawfully present in Kenya.
2. They were all recorded as having pleaded guilty to the charge, were convicted of the offence, and each fined Kshs.200,000/= and in default to serve one (1) year imprisonment. The court also ordered that on payment of the fine or completion of the prison term, they be returned back to Somalia.
3. The applicant has now come to this court, not through an appeal, but a letter dated 30th August (September, 2017) stating that though he pleaded guilty to the charge, he was a child and should have been treated in accordance with Section 191 of the Children Act, in sentencing.
4. According to him, he should not have been imprisoned with adults. He thus asks this court to review the sentence.
5. When the matter was placed before me on 5/10/2017, I ordered for medical age assessment of the applicant, and on 24/10/2017 the Garissa G.K Prison Officers filed a document headed “DENTAL AGE ASSESSMENT” in which the applicant was assessed on 23/10/2017 to be approximately 17 years of age.
6. Having perused and considered the documents in the file, the age assessment form and heard and seen the applicant in open court, in my view this is not a matter where this court should exercise its criminal review jurisdiction under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap.75).
7. Though this court has in the recent past been bending backwards to assist minors in similar situations, the age assessment report herein, as it is, does not assist this court in making a sensible decision on the age of the applicant.
8. The age assessment report does not indicate how the process of determining the age of the applicant was done. Secondly, it was signed by a person who did not indicate his name and qualifications and whether he had the necessary skills to assess the age of the applicant. It is important also to note that it is not easy for a court to visually determine the age of a person whose age is borderline, that is slightly below or slightly above 18.
9. Consequently, I dismiss the request for review of the sentence. If the applicant wants to appeal the decision of the Magistrate’s Court, this decision does not bar him from doing so, and he can do so. The request for revision of sentence is otherwise disallowed.
10. These are the orders of the court.
Dated and delivered at Garissa on 24th November, 2017.
George Dulu
JUDGE