[2022] KEHC 939 (KLR)
The court held that the sentence of seven years imprisonment imposed on the appellant was the statutory minimum required by section 92(2) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. The trial court had no discretion to impose a lesser sentence once it determined that a custodial sentence was warranted....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 939 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Jackson Lochibal; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E047 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Wildlife Offences, Sentencing Guidelines, Endangered Species Protection
- 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
Jackson Lochibal
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of seven years imprisonment imposed on the appellant for dealing in an endangered species was lawful and appropriate.
- 2 Whether the trial court had discretion to impose a lesser sentence than the statutory minimum.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the sentence of seven years imprisonment imposed on the appellant was the statutory minimum required by section 92(2) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. The trial court had no discretion to impose a lesser sentence once it determined that a custodial sentence was warranted. The appellant did not contest the need for a custodial sentence, and the quantity of endangered species involved justified such a sentence. There was no legal basis for the appellate court to interfere with the sentence, and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
- The sentence of seven years imprisonment is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO E047 OF 2021
JACKSON LOCHIBAL....APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.....................RESPONDENT
(Appeal from original Sentence in Maralal Criminal Case No 98 of 2020 – A Gachie, SRM)
J U D G M E N T
1. The Appellant herein, JACKSON LOCHIBAL, was convicted after trial of dealing in an endangered species of wildlife contrary to section 92(2)as read with section 105(a) & (b) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. It was alleged in the particulars of the offence that on 02/03/2020 at Lwala Bar & Lodge in Suguta-Marmar Shopping Centre along Maralal–Nyahururu road in Samburu Central Sub-County within Samburu County, jointly with others not before court, he was found transporting approximately 1. 5 tonnes of East African Sandalwood(Osiris Lonceolata) with a street value of KShs 6 million using motor vehicle registration No KCB 762V, make Toyota Voxy, without a permit from the Director–General, Kenya Wildlife Service.
2. On 25/11/2020 the Appellant was sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment. He has appealed only against that sentence.
3. I have considered the Appellant’s submissions as well as those of the learned counsel for the Respondent. Section 92(2) of the Act under which the Appellant was convicted provides –
“(2) A person who, without a permit or exemption issued under this Act, deals in a wildlife trophy of any critically endangered or endangered species as specified in the Sixth Schedule or listed under CITES Appendix I, commits an offence and shall be liable upon conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than seven years.”
4. The Appellant was found transporting a large quantity of East African Sandalwood(11/2 tones) which represented a large number of that shrub cut down. He certainly deserved a custodial sentence. In this appeal he did not once argue that he did not deserve a custodial sentence.
5. Once the trial court decided, as it did, that the Appellant deserved a custodial sentence, its hands were tied by the law as to the minimum number of years it could award him. In this case it was seven (7) years imprisonment, and that is what he got!
6. There is absolutely no reason for this court to interfere with that minimum term of imprisonment (by law) that the Appellant was awarded. I find no merit in this appeal against sentence. It is hereby dismissed. It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NANYUKI THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2022
H P G WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2022