[2014] KEHC 8471 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was properly convicted on his own unequivocal plea of guilty, as the record showed he confirmed the facts after they were read out in accordance with established legal guidelines. The court further held that charging the applicant with two counts of careless driving was lawful,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 8471 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Christopher Nyaga Kiragu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 54 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Careless Driving, Plea of Guilty, Criminal Revision, Traffic Offences
- 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
Christopher Nyaga Kiragu
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was properly convicted on his own plea of guilty.
- 2 Whether charging the applicant with two counts arising from the same set of facts was lawful.
- 3 Whether the proceedings before the trial court were correct, legal, and proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was properly convicted on his own unequivocal plea of guilty, as the record showed he confirmed the facts after they were read out in accordance with established legal guidelines. The court further held that charging the applicant with two counts of careless driving was lawful, since each count related to injury to a different passenger, even though the offences arose from the same incident. The applicant's claim that the conviction and sentence were improper was not supported by the law or the facts. The court also noted that there was no evidence the applicant did not understand the language of the plea, and the prosecution was correct in charging two...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.54 OF 2014
CHRISTOPHER NYAGA KIRAGU……………………………………APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………….………………………………………RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, Christopher Nyaga Kiragu was charged with two (2) counts of careless driving contrary to Section 49(1) of the Traffic Act. The particulars of the offence were that on 12th April 2014 at Kahawa Barracks along Thika Road within Nairobi County, the Applicant, being the driver of motor vehicle registration No. KAU 053D Toyota Matatu, drove the motor vehicle without due care and attention by turning right without due care thereby hitting motor vehicle registration No. KBK 685F Toyota Matatu thus causing injuries to two (2) passengers, namely John Muasa Musembi and Salome Nyambura Kimani. When the Applicant was arraigned before the trial court, he pleaded guilty to the charge. He was convicted on his own plea of guilty and fined Kshs.50,000/- on each count or in default he was ordered to serve six (6) months imprisonment. The Applicant paid the fine after serving part of the sentence.
On 23rd June 2014, the Applicant moved this court under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to have the said conviction and sentence revised and set aside. The Applicant stated that he was convicted allegedly on his own plea of guilty yet the record of the court showed that he had pleaded not guilty to the charge. He took issue with the fact that he had been charged with two (2) offences arising from the same set of facts. It was his view that he should have been charged with one count and not two counts from the same sets of facts. The Applicant ventilated his case through counsel (P.M. Mugo) during the hearing of the case. Ms. Aluda for the State opposed the application for revision. She submitted that the plea that was taken was unequivocal. However, if the court found that the plea that was taken was equivocal, she urged the court to order for a retrial.
This court has carefully considered the facts of this case. Under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this court has power to call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before a subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision made. Any aggrieved party, or the subordinate court itself, may bring to the attention of the High Court any proceeding or finding that requires to be revised by the court. In the present case, on perusal of the original file, it was apparent that part of the handwritten proceedings has been plucked from the record. The typed proceedings in my view, does not reflect the correct proceedings before the said court. This is because the trial court could not have requested the prosecutor to set out the facts of the case if the Applicant had not pleaded guilty to the charges. The Applicant confirmed the facts to be true after the facts were read. The Applicant was properly convicted on his own plea of guilty in accordance with the guidelines laid down Adan –vs- Republic [1973] EA 445.
The Applicant is not alleging that he did not understand the language in which the plea was read. The claim by the Applicant that he was convicted on two counts arising from the same set of facts, which was illegal, is not supported by law. The Applicant was charged with the offence of careless driving contrary to Section 49 of the Traffic Act. An ingredient of the offence is driving a motor vehicle “on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.” In the present case, the Applicant admitted to have carelessly driven his motor vehicle as a result of which it hit another motor vehicle causing injuries to two passengers. The act of injuring one passenger as a result of the careless driving constitutes an offence. The prosecution was therefore right when it charged the Applicant with the two counts of causing injury to the two passengers although the cause of action may have arisen from the same set of facts.
There is no merit in this request for revision. It is hereby dismissed. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014
L. KIMARU
JUDGE