[2017] KEHC 6961 (KLR)
The appellate court found that the sentences imposed by the trial court on both counts were lawful and in accordance with the minimum requirements set out in the relevant statutes. The court held that there was no basis for interfering with the sentences, as they were neither illegal nor excessive. The appellant's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6961 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Anthony Makanya Kiraguri; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 47 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Wildlife Offences, Forest Offences, Sentencing Principles
- 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
Anthony Makanya Kiraguri
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed by the trial court on the appellant for offences under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act and the Forest Act were lawful and warranted interference by the appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court found that the sentences imposed by the trial court on both counts were lawful and in accordance with the minimum requirements set out in the relevant statutes. The court held that there was no basis for interfering with the sentences, as they were neither illegal nor excessive. The appellant's mitigation regarding reformation and skills gained in prison did not warrant a reduction or alteration of the sentences, as the trial court had already imposed the minimum penalties prescribed by law. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
- The sentences imposed by the trial court are upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2016
ANTHONY MAKANYA KIRAGURI………..………………...APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………….……………………….......…………RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence by Hon. E. BETT – SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE dated 5th February 2016 in Nanyuki Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 804 of 2015)
JUDGMENT
1. ANTHONY MAKANYA was convicted on 2 counts before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nanyuki. On the first count he was charged with the offence of entering into a National Reserve without licence or permit contrary to section 102 (a) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013 (Wildlife Act). On count 2 he was charged with the offence of cutting and removing forest produce without authority contrary to section 52(2)(a) of the Forest Act No. 7 of 2005 (the Forest Act). The trial court sentenced the appellant on count one to a fine of kshs.200,000 and in default 2 years imprisonment. On count 2 the appellant was sentenced to a fine of Kshs.50,000 and in default 6 months imprisonment. The appellant has appealed against those sentences.
2. The appellant by this appeal seeks for this court to reconsider the sentence of the trial court. He submitted at the hearing of his appeal that he has reformed since being imprisoned and that he had gained skills in prison which will assist him to be self-reliant when he is out of prison.
3. In respect to section 102 of the Wildlife Act the sentence passed by the trial court was as provided therein. The section provides that the sentence when one is convicted under that section is a fine of Kshs.200,000 and in default 2 years imprisonment. That is the sentence which the trial court passed against the appellant on count one.
4. Similarly in respect to the second count the sentence as per the trial court did not contravene the law. Under section 52(2)(a) of the Forest Act the minimum sentence in respect when one who is convicted under that section is a fine of not less than Kshs.50,000 or imprisonment of a term of 6 months or both. As it will be seen from the above narration of the trial court’s judgment, the appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of kshs.50,000 and in default to serve a term of imprisonment of 6 months.
5. The trial court sentence in both counts was lawfull. Those sentences do not attract any interference from this court. It is for that reason that the appellant’s appeal against sentence fails and is dismissed.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 28th DAY OF MARCH 2017.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
CORAM
Before Justice Mary Kasango
Court Assistant: Ndungu
Appellant: Anthony Makanya Kiraguri
For the State: …....................................
Language: ……………………………
COURT
Judgment delivered in open court.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE