[2019] KEHC 4903 (KLR)
The High Court held that, following the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu and subsequent Court of Appeal decisions, courts are not strictly bound by statutory mandatory minimum sentences where such provisions are unconstitutional for removing judicial discretion. In this case, the accused pleaded guilty, did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 4903 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Directorate of Public Prosecution (D.P.P.); Respondent: Chief Magistrate’s Court – Nyahururu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyahururu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 7 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision
- Outcome
- Application for revision declined; sentence of the trial court upheld.
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Discretion, Wildlife Offences, Mandatory Sentences
- 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
Directorate of Public Prosecution (D.P.P.)
Applicant
Chief Magistrate’s Court – Nyahururu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred by imposing a sentence below the statutory minimum for illegal possession of wildlife trophy.
- 2 Whether the court has discretion to depart from mandatory minimum sentences in light of recent Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that, following the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu and subsequent Court of Appeal decisions, courts are not strictly bound by statutory mandatory minimum sentences where such provisions are unconstitutional for removing judicial discretion. In this case, the accused pleaded guilty, did not waste the court's time, and there were no aggravating circumstances. The amount of wildlife trophy involved was relatively small (4.5kgs), and no value was ascribed to it. The court found no justification to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court, and declined the State's request to revise the sentence upwards.
Court Disposition
Application for revision declined; sentence of the trial court upheld.
Orders
- The invitation by the State to review the sentence upwards is declined.
- The sentence imposed by the trial court remains undisturbed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYAHURURU
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 7 OF 2019
(Originating from Nyahururu CMCR.733 of 2019 before Hon. C. M. Muhoro (RM)
DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION (D.P.P.)............APPLICANT
V E R S U S
CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S
COURT – NYAHURURU............................................................RESPONDENT
RULING ON REVISION
The accused persons, namely, Jeremiah Loroo Iria, Philip Ngasike Ewoi and Wilfred Lototo Lemuruti were charged with the offence of being in illegal possession of wildlife trophy contrary to Section 95 (d) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013.
They were alleged to have been found in possession of wildlife trophy namely Zebra meat weighing 4. 5kgs without a permit on 12/04/2019, at Vetinary village in Laikipia. On 24/05/2019, Accused 1 and 2 pleaded guilty and were sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 20,000/- or five months imprisonment.
The prosecution Counsel has placed this file before this court for purposes of revision for reasons that the provisions of law under which the accused were charged, that is Section 95 provides for a minimum sentence of one million Kenya shillings and not less than twelve months imprisonment or oh fine and imprisonment.
I have considered the above provisions and the Supreme Court decision on Francis Karioko Muruatetu and Another vs Republic, SC Petition 16/2015, where the Supreme Court declared Section 204 of the Penal Code that provided for mandatory death sentence unconstitutional for reasons that it denied the court discretion in sentencing. The same decision has been adopted by the Court of Appeal in other decisions including the decision of Jarred Koita Injiri vs Republic, CRA 83/2014, where the Court of Appeal held that guided by the decision in Muruatetu’s case, the mandatory sentence stipulated under Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act was unconstitutional. The result is that the court is not bound by the mandatory provisions on sentences under some provisions of the law. The court can exercise its discretion in sentencing by considering the gravity of the offence, whether the accused pleaded guilty and any other mitigating or aggravating factors.
In the present case, the accused persons pleaded guilty and not waste the court’s time; the amount of wildlife trophy was 4. 5kgs although no value was put to it. I find that there are no aggravating circumstances to warrant the court to interfere with the sentence and the invitation by the State to review the sentence upwards is declined.
Delivered, Signedand Dated at NYAHURURU this 26thday of July, 2019.
R.P.V. Wendoh
JUDGE