[2021] KEHC 8017 (KLR)
The court found that the sentences imposed by the lower court—fines of Kshs. 300,000 or in default six months imprisonment for each count—were within the statutory limits prescribed by the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any illegality,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 8017 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Adan Mohamed Jama; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E028 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Immigration Offences, Use of Forged Documents
- 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
Adan Mohamed Jama
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecution
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was illegal, incorrect, or improper under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a revision of sentence on grounds of excessiveness or inability to pay the fine.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentences imposed by the lower court—fines of Kshs. 300,000 or in default six months imprisonment for each count—were within the statutory limits prescribed by the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any illegality, incorrectness, or impropriety in the sentences as required under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court further noted that the sentences were not only lawful but also lenient, and thus there was no basis for revision. Consequently, the application for revision was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to serve the sentence as imposed by the trial court.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
- The applicant is ordered to serve the sentence as imposed by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.E028 OF 2021
ADAN MOHAMED JAMA......................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION...........................................RESPONDET
RULING
The applicant ADNAN MOHAMED JAMA, has filed an application herein dated 5. 2.2021 on 9. 2.2021. The same is for revision under section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75, and various provisions of the constitution of Kenya. Attached to the application is an affidavit of the applicant in support of the same. In the application and indeed in the submissions made by the applicant in court, the applicant pleads for revision of the orders of sentence made by the lower court against the applicant in Criminal Case No. e4791/2020 (Milimani), on the basis that the same was excessive. He has pleaded for leniency since he is unable to meet the fines imposed. He pleads that he be repatriated to his home country, Somaliland.
The prosecution, in its short response, has only urged the court to apply its discretion in apportioning the sentence.
Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives this court the jurisdiction to revise any order, finding or sentence of a subordinate court if it is shown to exist any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety. To this end, it is incumbent upon the applicant to show to this court, such illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the said orders of the lower court.
I have considered the record of the lower court, including the 3 counts that the applicant was charged with and to which he entered pleas of guilty, and the sentences passed by the trial court. The same are as follows:-
On count I, the applicant faced a charge of knowingly using a travel document issued to another person contrary to section 54(1)(m) as read with section 54(2) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011 Laws of Kenya. The sentence therein is a fine of not exceeding 5 million shillings or imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or to both.
On court II, he faced a charge of knowing using a travel document with a forged endorsement contrary to section 54(1)(c) as read with section 54(2) of the Kenya citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011 laws of Kenya. The sentence provided for in this section is fine of not exceeding Kshs.5 million or in default imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.
And in court III, he faced a charge of knowingly using a travel document with a forged endorsement contrary to section 54(1)(c) as read with section 54(2) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011 Laws of Kenya. The sentence for this offence is also a fine not exceeding Kshs.5 million or default imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or to both.
The lower court, in the sentence aggrieved of passed fines of Ksh.300,000/= or in default to serve 6 months imprisonment on counts I and II. And for count III the court passed a sentence of a fine of Kshs.300,000/= or in default to serve 6 months imprisonment.
It is the position of this court that the sentences above, were not only lenient, but within the law. I accordingly do not find any incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the same that would warrant a revision of the same. This application of the applicant dated 5. 2.2021 lacks in any merit. The same is dismissed. For avoidance of doubt, the applicant is ordered to serve his sentence as ordered by the trial court.
D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
1. 4.2021
Court:
Ruling read out in open court (on-line) in the presence applicant, Ms. Gikonyo for the state. Same accordingly interpreted by Ibrahim, Court clerk.
D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
1. 4.2021