[2012] KEHC 3171 (KLR)
The court found that the sentences imposed by the trial magistrate were lawful and within the statutory limits prescribed by the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011. The applicant's guilty plea and mitigation were considered, but the offences were serious and Parliament had provided for stiff penalties to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3171 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Chini Ali alias John Kimani Mathai; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 19 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Mitigation, Immigration Offences, Plea of Guilty
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Chini Ali alias John Kimani Mathai
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate was manifestly excessive or illegal.
- 2 Whether the applicant's guilty plea and mitigation warranted a noncustodial sentence or reduction of fine.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentences imposed by the trial magistrate were lawful and within the statutory limits prescribed by the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011. The applicant's guilty plea and mitigation were considered, but the offences were serious and Parliament had provided for stiff penalties to safeguard the country's integrity and security. There was no evidence that the sentences were illegal, manifestly excessive, or harsh. Consequently, there was no basis for the High Court to interfere with the sentences imposed by the trial court.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
Criminal Revision 19 of 2012
JOHN CHINI ALI alias JOHN KIMANI MATHAI............................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This application is dated 5th March 2012. It is based on grounds that the learned trial magistrate failed to consider that the applicant pleaded guilty to the charges so as to save the court’s time and should have benefited from a noncustodial sentence. Further that the learned trial magistrate failed to consider the passionate mitigation of the applicant and proceeded to impose an exorbitant fine.
2. The applicant also urged that he has been unable to pay the fine imposed by the court and is therefore languishing in jail. That he is sick and in need of constant medication and special diet. And finally, that he stands to suffer irreparably if he is made to serve the two years imprisonment imposed in default of payment of fine.
3. In his oral submission argued on the 20th June 2012, the applicant pleaded for the court’s mercy on sentencing, urging the court to reduce the sentence, as well as the fine to Kshs.150,000/= which he could pay by cashing in his air ticket.
4. From the record, I note that the applicant pleaded guilty to the charges ofknowingly misleading an Immigration Officer seeking information material to the exercise of his powers contrary to Section 53(1) (a) of the Kenya Citizenship and the Immigration Act, 2011 in count I, and for knowingly making a false declaration for the purpose of obtaining a Kenyan passport contrary to Section 54 (1) (a) of the Kenya CitizenshipandImmigration Act, 2011 LawsofKenya in court II.
5. Parliament enacted legislation which provides stiff punishment for offences under the Immigration Act to safeguard the integrity and security of this country. The sentences which were imposed by the learned trial magistrate were lawful by virtue of Section 53 (2)of theImmigration Act in count I. Upon conviction for any of the offences under Section 53of theImmigration Act, Section 53(2)thereof provides that a person shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Kshs.500,000/- or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.
6. Any person convicted of offence under Section 54of theImmigration Act shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Kshs. 5,000,000/= or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.
7. An appellate court will not interfere with the sentence imposed by a trial court unless it is found to be illegal or manifestly excessive. The applicant herein was fined Kshs.200,000/= in default to serve 12 months imprisonment in count I, and Kshs.1,000,000/= in default to serve 12 months imprisonment in count II. These sentences were not illegal and I am not persuaded they are excessive or harsh in any way.
For the foregoing reasons, I therefore decline to grant the application sought. The application stands dismissed.
SIGNED DATEDandDELIVEREDin open court this 4thday of July2011.
L. A. ACHODE
JUDGE