[2020] KEHC 726 (KLR)
The court held that under Section 37 of the Penal Code, sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fines must run consecutively unless the court expressly directs otherwise, and it is unlawful for such sentences to run concurrently. In Makadara Criminal Case No. 1216/2016, the trial magistrate did not direct...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 726 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Eunice Karwitha Mbijiwe; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 513 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Interpretation of Penal Code, Fair Trial Rights
- 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
Eunice Karwitha Mbijiwe
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether sentences from different criminal cases in different courts can be ordered to run concurrently.
- 2 Whether the sentences imposed in Makadara Criminal Case No. 1216/2016 should run concurrently or consecutively.
- 3 Whether the computation of sentences as consecutive violates the applicant's right to a fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that under Section 37 of the Penal Code, sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fines must run consecutively unless the court expressly directs otherwise, and it is unlawful for such sentences to run concurrently. In Makadara Criminal Case No. 1216/2016, the trial magistrate did not direct that the sentences on the three counts should run concurrently; therefore, they must run consecutively. Regarding the applicant's request to have sentences from five different cases in different courts run concurrently, the court found that these cases were not consolidated, were determined independently, and there was no legal basis to link them for purposes of concurrent...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The sentences meted out on the three counts in Makadara Criminal Case No. 1216/2016 must run consecutively.
- No orders are issued to link the sentences in the five unrelated cases to run concurrently or consecutively.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.513 OF 2020
EUNICE KARWITHA MBIJIWE...................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS...........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicant EUNICE KARWITHA MBIJIWE, has filled this application on 14. 5.2020. The application is brought under a certificate of urgency and supported with an affidavit sworn on 23. 4.2020. though the application does not list any substantive prayers on its face, both the certificate of urgency and the affidavit in support of the application give a glimpse of the prayers the applicant seeks. That this court do order that the sentence meted out against the applicant in the 5 different cases be ordered to run concurrently. The 5 cases listed on the application are:-
i. Criminal case number 1216/2016 (Makadara law court in which the sentence passed was 2 years imprisonment on 16. 8.2016)
ii. Criminal case No. 2306/2014, Kiambu law court (Fined 1 million or in default 3 years imprisonment, allegedly to run after the sentence in Makadara Criminal case 1216/2016, pronounced on 16. 8.2016.
iii. Criminal case No. 5472/2014, Kibera Law court, fined 1. 5 million, in default to serve 1½ years, on 6. 12. 2018.
iv. Criminal case no. 2039/2016, Milimani Law court (Count 1, 3 years, count 2, 1 year, count 3, 1 year, Count 4, 1 year imprisonment to run concurrently), on 22. 9.2016.
v. Criminal case No. 38/2016 Milimani law court (Fined 100,000/= in default 1year imprisonment in each count running concurrently, 27. 9.2019).
From the affidavit of the applicant, this court gets the impression that the sentences on these 5 different cases that the applicant faced in the different courts have been computed together, with the effect of having each sentence run consecutive to the other. It is therefore the position of the applicant that serving the sentences consecutive to each other contravenes her rights to fair trial. The question therefore for determination is whether it is legal to compute the sentences from the 5 different cases in different courts to run consecutive to each other.
The prosecution has submitted only in the lower court file, Makadara criminal case No. 1216/2016 and maintained that the orders of the lower court in respect of counts I, II and III be maintained.
I have considered the submissions of both sides. I have also perused the application of the applicant in details.
Regarding this particular file, being Makadara criminal case number 1216/2016, the record on sentence of 16. 8.2016 clearly show that the applicant, who faced 3 counts was sentenced to pay a fine of Ksh.200,000/= or in the alternative to serve 2 years imprisonment on each count. There was a further order that the applicant do compensate the complainant the amount obtained as reflected on the charge sheet. The court, however did not indicate as to whether the sentences on the 3 counts were to run concurrently or consecutively.
Section 37 of the penal code gives directions on this matter:
“Where a person after conviction for an offence is convicted of another offence, either before sentence is passed upon him under the first conviction or before the expiry of that sentence, any sentence, other than a death sentence, which is passed upon him under the subsequent conviction shall be executed after the expiration of the former sentence, unless the court otherwise directs that it shall be executed concurrently with the former sentence or any part thereof;”
Provided that it shall not be lawful for a court to direct that a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine shall be executed concurrently with a former sentence under sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (1) of subsection (1) of section 28 or any part thereof.”
In effect the above provision dictates that where the court has given sentences of fines as alternative to the imprisonment terms, the sentences can only run consecutively. Such sentences cannot run concurrently. The trial magistrate did not give these directions during the sentencing proceedings held on 16. 8.2016. I therefore declare that the sentences meted out on the 3 counts therein of fines of Ksh.200,000/= or in default, 2 years imprisonment ought to and must run consecutive to each other.
On the other issues raised on sentences meted out by the various courts on the different cases that the applicant faced (noted above), with respect this court noted that these were different cases conducted in different counts. These cases were never consolidated with this instant case (Makadara Criminal Case No. 1216/2016). They were determined at different times without regard to the other. It has also not been shown how the cases were related to each other. They remain independent of each other, and no orders can issue on any to run consecutively or concurrently with the other in terms of sentences. I therefore decline to grant any orders that could link these 5 unrelated cases as sought by the applicant.
HON. JUSTICE D. OGEMBO OGOLA
2ND OCTOBER 2020
Court:
Ruling read out in presence of the applicant and Mr. Mutuma for the state.
HON. JUSTICE D. OGEMBO OGOLA
2ND OCTOBER 2020