[2016] KEHC 8092 (KLR)
The court held that the application for revision was premature as it was filed too soon after conviction and before the Applicant had paid the fine or served a reasonable portion of the sentence. The court also found that the trial magistrate did not err in sentencing, as the particulars of the offence indicated...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 8092 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ayub Karanja Mwangi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 140 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Criminal Revision, Traffic Offences, Mitigating Factors
- 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
Ayub Karanja Mwangi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the Applicant was harsh and excessive.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate failed to consider mitigating factors such as the Applicant being a first offender, pleading guilty, and suffering from illness.
- 3 Whether the application for revision was prematurely filed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application for revision was premature as it was filed too soon after conviction and before the Applicant had paid the fine or served a reasonable portion of the sentence. The court also found that the trial magistrate did not err in sentencing, as the particulars of the offence indicated that a pedestrian was injured, contrary to the Applicant's submission. Therefore, there was no basis for revising the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 140 OF 2015
AYUB KARANJA MWANGI………………....…………………. APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………………………….…...RESPONDENT
RULING
The application before me is for revision of the sentence imposed on the Applicant. He was charged with four counts under Traffic Act Cap 403 Laws of Kenya. In count 1, he was charged with careless driving, count II, with failing to report an accident, count III, failing to stop after an accident and in count IV, failing to renew driving license. He was convicted on his own plea of guilty. In count I, he was sentenced to a fine of Kshs. 80,000/= in default serve one year imprisonment. In count II to IV, he was fined Kshs. 20,000/= on each of the counts in default serve four months imprisonment respectively. The sentence was passed on 24th May, 2016.
In his application by Chamber Summons filed on 5th July, 2016, he contests that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. That in so imposing the sentence, the learned trial magistrate failed to take into consideration that he was a first offender, that he pleaded guilty and therefore saved the court’s time and that he was suffering from peptic ulcers. In his further oral submission in court, he stated that the trial magistrate also failed to consider that no one was injured in the accident.
Learned State Counsel Ms. Kimiri opposed the application. She submitted that the sentence was reasonable and that the application had been brought too soon after the conviction. She urged that the Applicant should serve at least half of the sentence before seeking a review.
I have considered the application and the respective submissions. I entirely agree with the State Counsel that the application has been filed too soon after the conviction. The Applicant must pay the fine or at least serve a reasonable portion of the sentence before the court can consider a revision of the sentence. Further, a look at the particulars of Count I, contrasts the Applicant’s submission that no one was injured in the accident. They clearly state that one pedestrian was hit and sustained injuries. For those reasons, pursuant to the powers conferred on this court under Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the application herein is dismissed. It is so ordered
DATED and DELIVERED this 25th day of July, 2016
G.W. NGENYE-MACHARIA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
1. Applicant in person.
2. Ms. Sigei for the Respondent