[2016] KEHC 799 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, having pleaded guilty, was not entitled to appeal the conviction or sentence except on grounds of illegality or impropriety. Upon review, the sentence imposed by the trial court was in accordance with the law, and the trial court had duly considered both the applicant's mitigation...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 799 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Benson Kiria Nyaga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 14 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Revision
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Plea of Guilty, Alcoholic Drink Control, Mitigation, Revision Jurisdiction
- 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
Benson Kiria Nyaga
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to review or appeal after pleading guilty to the offence charged.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was legal and proper under the Alcoholic Drink Control Act, 2010.
- 3 Whether the trial court considered the applicant's mitigation and pre-sentence report appropriately.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, having pleaded guilty, was not entitled to appeal the conviction or sentence except on grounds of illegality or impropriety. Upon review, the sentence imposed by the trial court was in accordance with the law, and the trial court had duly considered both the applicant's mitigation and a pre-sentence report, which was negative. There was no irregularity or illegality in the proceedings or sentence to warrant interference by the High Court. The application was therefore dismissed, and the sentence was upheld.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed.
- The sentence of the trial court is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION CASE NO. 14 OF 2016
(In the matter of an intended Appeal)
BETWEEN
BENSON KIRIA NYAGA.........................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.........................................................RESPONDENT
RULING ON REVISION
1. BENSON KIRIA NYAGA ("the Applicant") was on 14th July, 2016 arraigned before the Marimanti Senior Resident Magistrate's Court with the offence of being in possession of Alcoholic Drink Contrary to Section 27(1) (b) of the Alcoholic Drink Control Act, 2010 ("the relevant law"). It was alleged that on 13th July, 2016 at Kanyaru village, Ntugi Location, Tharaka Nithi County the Applicant was found in possession of 20 litres of Alcoholic Drink namely "Mugacha" which was not in conformity with the requirements of the relevant law. He pleaded guilty, was convicted and fined Kshs.200,000/- in default to serve 2 years imprisonment.
2. On 22nd September, 2016, the Applicant lodged an application to be allowed to lodge " a mitigation appeal"out of time. I have looked at the application and the document christened "Grounds of Appeal". The same are not grounds of appeal perse. They only amount to mitigation grounds. They do not challenge the trial court's decision on any aspect. I consider this to be an application for review.
3. Under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this court is granted power to call for a lower court record and satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of the proceedings or sentence. I have looked at the trials court's record. The Applicant pleaded guilty and is therefore not entitled to an appeal therefrom (see section 348Criminal Procedure Code). I have looked at the sentence and I find the same to have been in accordance with the law. I have considered that the trial court not only considered the mitigation given by the Applicant but it also called for and considered a pre-sentence report which was negative to the Applicant.
4. In this regard, I find nothing untoward in the trial court's record to warrant any interference with its decision. The proceedings were regular as was the sentence legal.
5. The Applicant should be of good conduct and pray to benefit from the CSO programme at the appropriate time Accordingly, I decline to review the sentence and dismiss the application
DATEDand Delivered at Chuka this 20th day of December, 2016
A.MABEYA
JUDGE