[2014] KEHC 6878 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, as a repeat offender, should have been sentenced to a fine not exceeding KES 100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year under Section 34(b) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act, 2010. The sentence of eighteen months imprisonment imposed by the trial court exceeded...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 6878 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Esther Syonthi Musyoka; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 622 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision
- Outcome
- sentence quashed and substituted to time served
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Illegality, Repeat Offender, Alcoholic Drinks Control, Medical and Humanitarian Grounds
- 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
Esther Syonthi Musyoka
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant exceeded the statutory maximum for a repeat offence under the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act.
- 2 Whether the applicant should be discharged or have her sentence revised on medical or humanitarian grounds.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, as a repeat offender, should have been sentenced to a fine not exceeding KES 100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year under Section 34(b) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act, 2010. The sentence of eighteen months imprisonment imposed by the trial court exceeded the statutory maximum and was therefore illegal. The court quashed the illegal sentence and, considering the applicant's age and the period already served (about four months), substituted the sentence to the term already served. The court found no sufficient medical evidence to support discharge on medical grounds but exercised discretion to revise the sentence on the basis of...
Court Disposition
sentence quashed and substituted to time served
Orders
- The sentence of eighteen months imprisonment is quashed.
- The applicant's sentence is substituted to the term already served.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 622 OF 2013
ESTHER SYONTHI MUSYOKA…………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………………..RESPONDENT
RULING ON REVISION
The Application dated 12th November, 2013 is for review and/or discharge of the applicant on medical or humanitarian grounds. It is premised on grounds that the applicant was sentenced to 18 Months imprisonment; she is aged 70 years and suffers from diabetes and loss of sight.
In his submissions pursuant to provisions of Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Mr Kinyua for the Applicant stated that the sentence meted out against the Applicant was per the provisions of Section 34(b) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act 2010, instead of Section 34(a) of the Act, the law against which she was charged.
Mrs Abuga, for the State was in agreement that the sentence imposed was excessive but argued that the applicant had a previous conviction. She called upon the court to impose a non-custodial sentence in the premises taking into consideration her age.
The applicant was charged with the offence of being in possession of alcoholic drinks for sale without a licence contrary to Section 34(a) of the Alcoholic Drinks, Control Act No. 4 of 2010. The applicant having pleaded guilty to the charge was convicted. A sentence of eighteen (18) months was meted out.
Section 34 of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act, 2010 provides thus:-
“Any person who sells an alcoholic drink or offers or exposes it for sale or who bottles an alcoholic drink except under and in accordance with and on such premises as may be specified in a licence issued in that behalf under this Act commits an offence and is liable-
For a first offence, to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding nine months, or to both;
For a second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both.
And in addition to any penalty imposed under paragraph (a) or (b), the court may order, the forfeiture of all alcoholic drinks found in the possession, custody or control of the person convicted, together with the vessels containing the alcoholic drinks”.
The applicant having been a repeat offender ought to have been sentenced to a fine not exceeding 100,000/= or for imprisonment of a term not exceeding one year. The sentence imposed of eighteen months imprisonment was therefore illegal. In the circumstances I do quash it.
The applicant is said to be 70 years old. I have perused treatment notes in respect of the applicant dated 5/2/2013 where her age is indicated as 67 years. She has averred that she suffers from loss of sight due to diabetic condition. This is not supported by medical evidence.
However, considering the fact that she has served sentence of about 4 months, I will substitute her sentence to the term already served.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVEREDat MACHAKOS this 17TH day of FEBRUARY 2014
L.N. MUTENDE
JUDGE