[2017] KEHC 8636 (KLR)
The court found that while the penalties for counts I and II were within the statutory limits, the fines imposed for counts III, IV, and V were excessive considering the minor nature of the offences and the applicant's status as a first offender. The court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to substitute the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 8636 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Bonface Karumba Kamau; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 42 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- sentences revised; applicant partially discharged; fines reduced
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Traffic Offences, Penal Code Application
- 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
Bonface Karumba Kamau
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the applicant for various traffic offences were excessive and warranted revision.
- 2 Whether the applicant, as a first offender, was entitled to more lenient treatment under the law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the penalties for counts I and II were within the statutory limits, the fines imposed for counts III, IV, and V were excessive considering the minor nature of the offences and the applicant's status as a first offender. The court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to substitute the sentences with more appropriate penalties, discharging the applicant unconditionally for counts III, IV, and V under Section 35(1) of the Penal Code, and reducing the fines for counts I and II. The decision was guided by the principle of proportionality in sentencing and the need to consider the rehabilitative rather than punitive approach for first offenders.
Court Disposition
sentences revised; applicant partially discharged; fines reduced
Orders
- The applicant is unconditionally discharged under Section 35(1) of the Penal Code in respect of counts III, IV, and V.
- In counts I and II, the applicant shall pay a fine of Kshs. 10,000 and 5,000 respectively, in default serve 2 months imprisonment for each count.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 42 OF 2017
BONFACE KARUMBA KAMAU......................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
I have considered the request for revision of the sentence, save for counts III and IV, the rest of the counts carry heavy penalties.
In count I in which the Applicant was charged with causing obstruction, he was liable on a 1st conviction to a fine not exceeding Kshs. 50,000/= in default serve one year imprisonment and on a subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding Kshs. 75,000/= or to imprisonment not exceeding 18 months including cancellation of the driving licence. He was sentenced to a fine of Kshs. 15,000/- in default serve 3 months imprisonment which in view of the penalty provided for was reasonable.
In count II and V, the Applicant was charged with dangerous overtaking and failing to exhibit recent photograph of the driver. The penalty for both offences are, for a 1st offender a fine not exceeding Kshs. 100,000/= or to imprisonment of not more than 12 months. In my view, these are petty offences which do not call for such heavy penalties. The trial court fined the Applicant Kshs. 7,000/= and Kshs. 5,000/= respectively. I think that the fine imposed in count V was excessive having regard to the offence.
In count III and IV, the Applicant was charged with failing to wear public service vehicle uniform and failing to wear public service badge respectively. He was sentenced to a fine of Kshs. 10,000/= in default serve 2 months imprisonment in respect of each of the account. Again, having regard to the offences, I think that the fines imposed were excessive.
In view of my observations, I will revise the sentences and substitute them with the following orders:
a. I discharge the Applicant unconditionally under Section 35(1) of the Penal Code in respect of counts III, IV and V.
b. In counts I and II, he shall pay a fine of Kshs. 10,000 and 5,000/= in default serve 2 months imprisonment respectively. If he fails to pay the fine, sentences will run consecutively.
c. In making my findings, I have given regard to the fact that the Applicant is a first offender. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED this 27thday of MARCH, 2017.
G.W. NGENYE-MACHARIA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
1. Applicant present in person
2. M/s Sigei for the Respondent.