[2010] KEHC 1690 (KLR)
The court held that Section 49(1) of the Traffic Act does not make the imposition of a fine mandatory for a first conviction of careless driving. The use of the word 'liable' in the statute means that the trial magistrate has discretion to impose either a fine or a custodial sentence, depending on the circumstances...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1690 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jackson Mati; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 102 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application for revision dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Discretion, Traffic Offences, Interpretation of Statutes
- 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 Mati
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in sentencing the applicant to imprisonment without the option of a fine under Section 49(1) of the Traffic Act.
- 2 Whether Section 49(1) of the Traffic Act mandates a fine as the only sentence for a first conviction of careless driving.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that Section 49(1) of the Traffic Act does not make the imposition of a fine mandatory for a first conviction of careless driving. The use of the word 'liable' in the statute means that the trial magistrate has discretion to impose either a fine or a custodial sentence, depending on the circumstances of the case. In this instance, the applicant's conduct—jumping out of a moving vehicle, which then struck a pedestrian and a kiosk—was deemed extremely reckless. The court found that the custodial sentence imposed by the trial magistrate was appropriate and commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. There was therefore no basis to interfere with or revise the sentence...
Court Disposition
application for revision dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is declined.
- The applicant will serve the sentence as imposed by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA
Criminal Revision 102 of 2010
[Arising fromTrafficCase No. 6968 of 2010of the ChiefMagistrate’s Court atMombasa:T. Ole Tanchu– S.R.M.]
JACKSON MATI .........……..………..……… APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……...........……............……… RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant had been charged before the lower court with the following four (4) offences.
(1)Careless Driving contrary to Section 49(1) of the Traffic Act.
(2)Driving a Defective Motor Vehicle contrary to Section 58(1) of the Traffic Act.
(3)Failing to stop contrary to Section 73(1) of the Traffic Act
(4)Driving without a PSV badge contrary to Section 65(A) of the Traffic Act.
The Applicant pleaded guilty to all four counts and maintained his plea of guilty even after the facts were read out to him.He was convicted and later sentenced to serve three (3) months imprisonment on the first count, 21 days imprisonment on the third count and 21 days imprisonment on the fourth count.The court acquitted the Applicant on the second count as no Inspection Report had been attached.The sentences were all to run concurrently.
Counsel for the Applicant argues that the Applicant ought not to have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment without the option of a fine.He contends that S. 49 (1) of the Traffic Act provides for a fine of Kshs.5,000/- upon a first conviction.I have carefully perused the said provision and with respect I do not agree.S. 49(1) states that upon a first conviction an offender is “liable” to a fine of Kshs.5,000/-.The word “liable” does not in my view make this a mandatory provision.It simply denotes that the trial magistrate may impose a fine of upto Kshs.5,000/-.Nowhere in S. 49(1) is it stated that a prison term may not be imposed nor does it make the imposition of a fine the only sentence available.The wording of S. 49(1) does not remove the trial magistrate’s discretion to impose sentence.The discretion remains with the trial magistrate to impose a sentence commensurate with the circumstances.I have read the facts of this case and in my view the Applicant acted extremely recklessly in jumping out of his moving vehicle which went on to hit a pedestrian and a kiosk.The prison term imposed by the learned magistrate was in those circumstances quite appropriate.I find no reason to interfere with the same.As such I decline to revise the sentences. The Applicant will serve his term as imposed by the trial court.
Dated and Delivered inMombasathis 13th day of July 2010.
M. ODERO
JUDGE