[2016] KEHC 809 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had pleaded guilty to the offence of being in possession of alcoholic drink contrary to the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act, and that the sentence imposed by the trial court was in accordance with the law. The application before the court did not raise any legal grounds challenging...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 809 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Edward Murithi Kathenya; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 12 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Revision
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Plea of Guilty, Alcoholic Drinks Control, Revision Jurisdiction
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Edward Murithi Kathenya
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was legal and proper under the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review or appeal after pleading guilty.
- 3 Whether there was any irregularity or impropriety in the trial court proceedings or sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had pleaded guilty to the offence of being in possession of alcoholic drink contrary to the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act, and that the sentence imposed by the trial court was in accordance with the law. The application before the court did not raise any legal grounds challenging the conviction or sentence but merely presented mitigation. The trial court had considered both the applicant's mitigation and a pre-sentence report, which was negative. There was no irregularity or impropriety in the proceedings or the sentence to warrant interference by the High Court. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed as there was no legal basis for...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION CASE NO. 12 OF 2016
(In the matter of an intended Appeal)
BETWEEN
EDWARD MURITHI KATHENYA............APPLICANT
- VERSUS -
REPUBLIC.......................................RESPONDENT
RULING ON REVISION
1. EDWARD MURITHI KATHENYA ("the Applicant") was on 16th July, 2015 arraigned before the Marimanti Senior Resident Magistrate's Court with the offence of being in possession of alcoholic drink contrary to section 27(1) (b) as read with section 27 (4) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act of 2010 ("the relevant law"). It was alleged that on 16th July, 2016, at Marimanti Location, Tharaka South of Tharaka Nithi County, the Applicant was found in possession of 20 litres of alcoholic drink namely, Kathoroko which was not in conformity with the requirement of the relevant law. The Applicant pleaded guilty, was convicted and fined Kshs.200,000/- in default to serve two (2) years imprisonment.
2. On 22nd September, 2016, the Applicant lodged an application to be allowed to lodge " a mitigation appeal"out of time. I have looked at the application and the document christened "Grounds of Appeal". The same are not grounds of appeal perse. They only amount to mitigation grounds. They do not challenge the trial court's decision on any aspect. I consider this to be an application for review.
3. Under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this court is granted power to call for a lower court record and satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of the proceedings or sentence. I have looked at the trials court's record. The Applicant pleaded guilty and is not entitled to an appeal therefrom (see section 348 Criminal Procedure Code). I have looked at the sentence and I find the same to have been in accordance with the law. I have seen that the trial court considered not only the mitigation given by the Applicant but also called for and considered a pre-sentence report which was negative to the Applicant.
4. In this regard, I find nothing untoward in the trial court's record to warrant any interference with its decision. The proceedings were regular as was the sentence legal.The Applicant should be of good conduct and hope to benefit from the CSO programme at the appropriate time.
5. Accordingly, I decline to review the sentence and the Application is dismissed.
DATEDand Delivered at Chuka this 20th day of December, 2016.
A.MABEYA
JUDGE