[2010] KEHC 1689 (KLR)
The court held that the use of the word 'liable' in section 49(1) of the Traffic Act grants the trial court discretion to impose either a fine or a term of imprisonment upon conviction for careless driving. There is no legal requirement that a fine must be imposed. The trial magistrate exercised this discretion...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1689 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Eric Nyaburi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 104 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application for revision dismissed
- Judges
- JV Juma
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Discretion, Careless Driving, 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
Eric Nyaburi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to allow the applicant the option of a fine upon conviction for careless driving contrary to section 49(1) of the Traffic Act.
- 2 Whether the High Court should interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the use of the word 'liable' in section 49(1) of the Traffic Act grants the trial court discretion to impose either a fine or a term of imprisonment upon conviction for careless driving. There is no legal requirement that a fine must be imposed. The trial magistrate exercised this discretion judiciously by sentencing the applicant to one month imprisonment without the option of a fine. The High Court found no error or misdirection in the exercise of this discretion and declined to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Court Disposition
application for revision dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is declined.
- The applicant will serve one month in prison as imposed by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Criminal Revision 104 of 2010
[Arising fromTrafficCase No. 7107of 2010of the ChiefMagistrate’s Court at
Mombasa:T. Ole Tanchu– S.R.M.]
ERIC NYABURI …………..…………..……… APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……..............……............……… RESPONDENT
RULING
The accused person ERICK NYABURI, sought revision of his sentence in Tr. 7107 of 2010. In that case the accused pleaded guilty to a charge of CARELESS DRIVING CONTRARY TO SECTION 49(1) OF THE TRAFFIC ACT CAP 403. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge.The facts were read out to him as required by S. 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the accused maintained his plea of guilty.The learned trial magistrate then convicted the accused and after listening to his mitigation sentenced him to serve one (1) month in prison.The accused claims that the trial magistrate erred in failing to allow him the option of a fine.
S. 49(1) of the Traffic Act under which the accused was charged provides
“49(1)Any person who drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for otherpersons using the road shall be guilty of an offence and liable for a first offence to a fine not exceeding five thousand shillings, and for a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding five thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months”. The term used in this provision is “liable”.This allows the trial court a discretion on whether to impose a fine or not.Nowhere does the law make it mandatory that a fine be imposed.As such the learned trial magistrate acted well within his discretion in imposing a term of imprisonment without an option of a fine.The discretion on what sentence to impose lies exclusively with the trial court.The High Court will not interfere with such discretion unless it has not been judiciously exercised.That has not happened here.I find that there has been no error or misdirection on the part of the trial magistrate and I do therefore decline to revise this sentence.The accused will serve one month in prison as imposed by the trial court.
Dated and Delivered inMombasathis 7th day of July 2010.
M. ODERO
JUDGE