[2013] KEHC 3556 (KLR)
The High Court found that while the sentence of eight years imprisonment was within the statutory maximum, it was harsh and excessive for a first offender. The law under section 56(1)(a) of the Wildlife Conservation & Management Act allows for a fine and/or imprisonment, and the court determined that a fine would be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3556 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: David Ebenyo Lotiang; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 106 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- sentence reduced on appeal
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Wildlife Offences, First Offender Treatment
- 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
David Ebenyo Lotiang
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was harsh and excessive for a first offender.
- 2 Whether the sentence was lawful under section 56(1)(a) of the Wildlife Conservation & Management Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that while the sentence of eight years imprisonment was within the statutory maximum, it was harsh and excessive for a first offender. The law under section 56(1)(a) of the Wildlife Conservation & Management Act allows for a fine and/or imprisonment, and the court determined that a fine would be more appropriate in the circumstances. Accordingly, the sentence was reduced to a fine of Ksh. 40,000, with a default sentence of two years imprisonment if the fine is not paid.
Court Disposition
sentence reduced on appeal
Orders
- The sentence of eight years imprisonment is set aside and substituted with a fine of Ksh. 40,000, in default to serve two years imprisonment from the date of conviction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Kitale
Criminal Appeal 106 of 2001 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif]
DAVID EBENYO LOTIANG ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT.
VERSUS
REPUBLIC :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT.
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence of H.O. Barasa – SRM. in Criminal Case No. 495/2011 delivered on 17th April, 2012 at Lodwar.)
6/5/2013.
Court:-With regard to an appeal on sentence, the court may interfere only if the sentence was harsh and or excessive or if it was unlawful.
Herein, the sentence of eight (8) years imprisonment was lawful. However, it was rather excessive and harsh for a first offender considering that section 56 (1) (a) of the Wildlife Conservation & Management Act (Cap, 376 LOK) provides for a sentence of a fine of Ksh. 40,000/= and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of ten (10) years.
Consequently, the appeals by both appellants are allowed to the extent that the sentence is reduced to a fine of Ksh. 40,000/= in default to serve two (2) years imprisonment from the date of conviction by the trial court on 19th July, 2011.
Ordered accordingly.
J.R. KARANJA.
JUDGE.
[if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; text-autospace:ideograph-other; font-size:12. 0pt;"Liberation Serif","serif";} </style> <![endif]