[2014] KEHC 6585 (KLR)
The court found that the plea of guilty entered by the appellant was not unequivocal because the prosecution failed to outline the factual basis of the charges as required by law. Furthermore, the charge was based on the definitive section of the statute, rendering it fatally defective. As a result, the conviction...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 6585 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Faith Ngeno; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 5 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside
- Legal Topics
- Plea Taking, Conviction and Sentence, Alcoholic Drinks Control, Defective Charge, Criminal Procedure
- 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
Faith Ngeno
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plea of guilty was properly taken in accordance with the law.
- 2 Whether the conviction based on a defective charge was valid.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was harsh and punitive.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plea of guilty entered by the appellant was not unequivocal because the prosecution failed to outline the factual basis of the charges as required by law. Furthermore, the charge was based on the definitive section of the statute, rendering it fatally defective. As a result, the conviction could not stand, and the sentence imposed was set aside. The court emphasized the mandatory procedural requirements for plea taking and the necessity for charges to be properly framed to ensure a fair trial.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside
Orders
- The conviction is quashed.
- The sentence is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2014
FAITH NGENO......................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.........................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the conviction and sentence made by the learned Principal Magistrate at Sotik court (Hon. P. Olengo) in Sotik Principal Magistrate's court criminal case No.43 of 2014 on 14/01/2014)
JUDGMENT
FAITH NGENO, the Appellant herein pleaded guilty to a charge of two counts. In the first count, the appellant faced a charge of selling alcoholic drinks without a licence contrary to Section 27(1) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act no.4 of 2010(1). While in the second count the appellant was accused of selling alcoholic drinks without proper packaging contrary to Section 32(1)(c)of Alcoholic Drinks Act no.4 of 2010(1). She was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Kshs.10,000 in default to serve two months imprisonment. Being dissatisfied the appellant preferred this appeal.
On appeal the appellant put forward the following grounds:
The facts in each count were not read to the appellant before conviction hence the plea was not properly taken.
That without prejudice the sentence passed was harsh and punitive.
Miss. Muthee, learned State Counsel conceded the appeal on the ground that the appellant was convicted on a charge based on the definitive section hence the charge is fatally defective. With respect, I agree with the submissions of Miss. Muthee. The other issue which is apparent on record is the fact that the factual basis of the charge were not outlined by the Prosecutor. What was read out to the appellant was the substance of the charge which the appellant pleaded guilty to. It is envisaged under the proviso to Section 207(2) of theCriminal Procedure Code that after entering a plea of guilty and before passing sentence, the prosecution is permitted to outline the facts upon which the charge is founded. This was not done in this appeal, consequently, the plea cannot be said to be unequivocal.
In the end, the appeal is allowed. The conviction is quashed and the sentence is set aside. If any fine has been paid, the same be refunded forthwith or if the appellant is serving the default sentence she should be set free forthwith unless lawfully held.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court this 7th day of March, 2014.
…...................
J.K.SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Miss. Kivali for Director of Public Prosecution
N/A Mr. Rono for Appellant
Appellant present in person