[2014] KEHC 8161 (KLR)
The court found that the lower court record was unclear regarding the explanation of the particulars of the charge to the applicant. No facts were stated or read to him, and the facts in the charge sheet were insufficient for him to appreciate the ingredients of the charge. Additionally, the record did not indicate...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 8161 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jared Silas Akhonya; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 157 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Application for Bail Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- LA Achode
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Sentencing Guidelines, Plea of Guilty, Interpretation of Charges
- 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
Jared Silas Akhonya
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Application for Bail Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be admitted to bail pending the hearing and determination of his criminal appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant understood the charge and the plea entered in the lower court.
- 3 Whether the lower court considered all relevant factors in sentencing, including the absence of prior record.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the lower court record was unclear regarding the explanation of the particulars of the charge to the applicant. No facts were stated or read to him, and the facts in the charge sheet were insufficient for him to appreciate the ingredients of the charge. Additionally, the record did not indicate whether the absence of prior criminal record was considered in sentencing. These deficiencies raised substantial grounds justifying the grant of bail pending appeal. The application was therefore allowed, and the applicant was released on cash bail pending the hearing of the appeal.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The applicant is released on a cash bail of Kshs.20,000 pending the hearing of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
MISCELLANEUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 157 OF 2014
JARED SILAS AKHONYA ………...............................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………………………………........................RESPONDENT
RULING
This is a Notice of Motion dated 23rd day of May 2014, brought under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant seeks orders of court to admit him to bail/bond pending the hearing and determination of Criminal Appeal No. 57of 2014. He relies on the grounds on the face of the application and the annexed affidavit of Stephen Njau in support of the application on 23rd May 2014.
The appeal stems from the conviction of the applicant in Cm Cr. Case No. 2058 of 2014in which he was convicted for the offence of being in possession of Alcoholic drink that does not confirm to the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act No. 4 of 2010 contrary toSection 27(1)(b)of the Alcoholic Drinks Act of 2010.
Learned counsel Mr. Njau urged on behalf of the applicant, that the applicant be admitted to bond pending hearing and determination of Cr. Appeal Case No. 57 of 2014. He relied on his affidavit dated 23rd May 2014. The applicant and seven others were charged on 14th May 2014 at Kibera law courts with the offence of being in possession of 12 bottles of chang’aa, contrary to the stated provisions of the Alcoholic Drinks. The applicant entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to serve six months imprisonment without option of fine.
Mr. Njau argues that the applicant did not understand that the charge was drinking and not possession and that he offered no mitigation out of ignorance. He urged that the applicant is an aged person with a family and that he has instructed him to abide by any orders that the court may grant.
In response, Miss Wario learned state counsel opposed the application on grounds that the sentence passed was very lenient. That according to Section 27(4) of the Alcoholic Drinks Act of 2010, a person who is convicted under this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Kshs.2 million or to a period of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or both. Given the circumstances of the case it is her humble opinion that the sentence of the court was very lenient. She submitted that the court record showed that there was interpretation and that the applicant understood the charge against him and pleaded guilty thereto. She therefore urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
I have perused the lower court record and find that it is unclear on the manner in which the particulars of the charge were explained to the applicant. I also note that no facts were stated or read to him and those referred to in the charge sheet were too scanty to enable him appreciate the ingredients of the charge he faced. The record also does not indicate whether the absence of prior record on the part of the applicant was considered in sentencing him. The application is therefore allowed.
The applicant in Cr. App 157 of 2014 is released on a cash bail of Kshs.20,000/= pending the hearing of the appeal.
SIGNED DATEDandDELIVEREDin open court this 24th day of July 2014.
L. A. ACHODE
JUDGE