[2004] KEHC 1496 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant was charged under a non-existent law, as the Forest Produce Act does not exist and the correct statute is the Forests Act. The particulars of the charge did not disclose an offence because there was no evidence that the appellant was in a gazetted forest area or central forest as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1496 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Douglas Mwadima; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 38 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Bail Pending Appeal and Substantive Review of Conviction
- Outcome
- conviction quashed, sentence set aside, appellant released
- Legal Topics
- Defective Charge, Improper Plea, Unlawful Sentence, Jurisdiction, Statutory Interpretation
- 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
Douglas Mwadima
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Bail Pending Appeal and Substantive Review of Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the charge against the appellant was properly framed under an existing law.
- 2 Whether the plea was properly taken in accordance with legal requirements.
- 3 Whether the particulars of the charge disclosed an offence under the relevant statute.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant was charged under a non-existent law, as the Forest Produce Act does not exist and the correct statute is the Forests Act. The particulars of the charge did not disclose an offence because there was no evidence that the appellant was in a gazetted forest area or central forest as required by the statute. Furthermore, the plea was not properly taken since the facts were not read to the appellant. The sentence imposed exceeded the statutory maximum. Consequently, the conviction was quashed, the sentence set aside, and the appellant ordered to be released immediately unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
conviction quashed, sentence set aside, appellant released
Orders
- The conviction is quashed.
- The sentence is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2004
DOUGLAS MWADIMA……………….....…………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………………….RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The appellant/applicant was convicted in Kangundo SRMCC 197/04 for the offence of transporting forest produce without a licence contrary to section 8(1) (a) (1) of the forest produce Act cap 385 Laws of Kenya. He pleaded guilty to the charge and he was sentenced to a fine of Kshs.15,000/= in default 12 months imprisonment.
He has filed an application for bail pending appeal dated 11. 2.2004. Even without arguing the said application, the state counsel conceded that proper plea was not taken and the case be remitted back to the lower court for plea.
Counsel for appellants submits that the law under which the appellant was charged is non-existent and that the sentence meted is unlawful.
The appellant was charged under the Forest Produce Act cap 385 laws of Kenya. Such act does not exist. Cap 385 is the Forests Act. I believe that may have been a mistake on the part of the officer drafting the charge and the magistrate did not take note of it.
At the trial, the charge was read and explained to the appellant and he pleaded guilty. However the facts of the charge were never read to him.
The plea was therefore not properly taken.
From the particulars of the charge the appellant was found to be the driver of a motor vehicle. KAH 579V which was being driven along Kangundo Kivaa Road in Machakos district. He was allegedly transporting 110 bags of charcoal without a licence. Under section 8(1) (a) it is provided that “no person shall except under the licence of the Director of Foresty in a forest area or central forest, fell cut, take, injure or remove any forest produce.”
There is no indication that the appellant was found in gazetted forest area or central forest. The particulars show that he was driving on the road.
The particulars of the charge do not therefore disclose an offence.
The magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction by fining the appellant 15,000/= in default 12 months. If the charge before court was proper section 14 (2) (ii) provides the penalty of offence under section 8 of the Act to be estimated damage caused and where chief conservation cannot determine the value of such produce, or damage, such person shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Kshs.Kshs.10,000/= or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months imprisonment. The magistrate opted to impose fine but the fine imposed is illegal and unlawful as it is not provided for by the law.
Though the plea was improperly taken, the charge was defective, particulars do not disclose an offence, appellant is charged under a non existent law and I find that there is nothing for the court to review. The proceedings are very brief and there is no need for the court to wait for preparation of record of appeal. The appellant is unlawfully held in prison and the court would be doing injustice to keep holding him in prison. The court will go ahead to quash the conviction, set aside the sentence and the appellant is set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Dated, read and delivered at Machakos this 25th day of February, 2004.
R. WENDOH
JUDGE