https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9448

**Republic Of Kenya** **In The High Court Of Kenya At Mombasa** **Criminal Revision No. E214 Of 2025** **Ally Halifa Sheria………….…….……………………..…………………..…………Applicant** **Versus** **Republic…………………………………………………………..……………….…Respondent** **Ruling** 1. The Applicant was charged with the offence of driving a motor vehicle on a public road that exceeds the maximum dimensions permitted for such a vehicle contrary to Section 55(2) as read with Section 58(1) of the Traffic Act, Cap 403 of the laws of Kenya. He pleaded guilty and was fined the sum of Kshs. 300,000.00 in default to serve a custodial sentence of nine (9) months. 2. The Applicant initially filed an appeal in *Malindi High Court Criminal Appeal No. E083 of 2025* which was later transferred to Mombasa. That appeal seems to have been abandoned in favour of the present application for revision. In the application for revision, the Applicant avers that the sentence was unlawful, harsh, excessive and imposed without due regard to the statutory scale of fines, mitigation and evidentiary standards. 3. I have perused the trial record and it is indicated that the trial court imposed the sentence upon observing that the trial was a first offender but that violation of weighbridge laws is *“shrouded as impunity”* therefore concluding that *“these offences should be deterred by weighty fines.”* The trial court does not indicate any other aggravating factors that necessitated the imposition of the fine which is weighty considering the maximum fine under the law is a sum of Kshs. 400,000.00. 4. Trial courts have a duty to consider the seriousness of the offence and also take into account the offender’s circumstances in passing sentences. This ensures that there is transparency in the sentences passed and there are no notable disparities in sentencing in similar offences and circumstances. The discretion exercised by courts, however, necessarily implies that there is no guarantee of uniformity. Even then, whenever a court passes a sentence, it should be evident what went into consideration before the sentence was passed. 5. The case before this court involved a traffic offence. The Traffic Act and the rules thereunder adopts a graduated sentencing and penalty system based on the seriousness of the traffic infraction. Section 58(1) mandates the promulgation of rules that provide for payment of fines according to, *“a prescribed scale, and different scales may be prescribed for first offenders, and for second or subsequent offenders, within a prescribed period.”* Rule 41(2) of the Traffic rules provides a schedule of fines for violation of weights and dimensions with a graduated penalty system based on the degree of the infraction as well as whether the offender is a first offender, second offender or a subsequent offender. The trial court was, therefore, under a duty to consider the degree of infringement, the circumstances of the Applicant – whether a first offender or not, and any other relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. 6. The trial record does not indicate how much weight was given to the fact that the Applicant was a first offender and the degree of the violation. The court merely noted that this violation is shrouded in impunity necessitating a severe sentence. Whereas traffic offences go into the safety of road users and should be accorded the seriousness they deserve in punishing offenders, it is my finding that the trial court overlooked material factors which could have led to a less severe penalty in this case. The sentence imposed was, therefore, disproportionate and it warrants interference by this court. 7. The application for revision of sentence is hereby allowed. The fine of Kshs. 300,000.00 in default to serve a custodial sentence of nine (9) months is substituted with a fine of Kshs. 100,000.00 in default to serve a custodial sentence of six (6) months. Considering that the fine has already been paid, it is hereby directed that the Applicant shall be refunded the sum of Kshs. 200,000.00. 8. Orders accordingly. **Ruling Dated and Delivered Virtually this 2nd day of July 2026** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **Nabil M. Orina** **Judge** **In the Presence of:** **Hamza – Court Assistant**