[2017] KEHC 5180 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 5180 (KLR)

The court found that the sentence imposed on the Applicant was both legal and the minimum required by Section 95 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. The court considered the period the Applicant had spent in custody but held that the law was clear and intended to curb the rampant menace of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 5180 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Geoffrey Sammy Njogu; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 37 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Wildlife Offences, Sentencing Principles, Possession of Wildlife Trophy
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Wildlife Offences Sentencing Principles Possession of Wildlife Trophy

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Sammy Njogu

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the Applicant for possession of wildlife trophy was lawful and subject to revision.
  2. 2 Whether the period spent in custody by the Applicant should be considered in tabulating the custodial sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sentence imposed on the Applicant was both legal and the minimum required by Section 95 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. The court considered the period the Applicant had spent in custody but held that the law was clear and intended to curb the rampant menace of poaching. The court therefore found no basis to revise the sentence downwards. However, it directed that if the Applicant was unable to pay the fine, the period already served in custody should be deducted from the custodial sentence to be served in default of payment of the fine.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
  • If the Applicant is unable to pay the fine, the period served in custody shall be taken into consideration when tabulating the custodial sentence.