[2019] KEHC 8979 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court had properly exercised its sentencing discretion, taking into account both the statutory limits and the mitigating circumstances presented by the applicant. The sentence imposed—a fine of Kshs. 140,000 or two years' imprisonment in default—was within the statutory range and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 8979 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Mugambi Mucega; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 136 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- BB Limo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Illicit Alcohol Offences, Plea of Guilty, Revision Jurisdiction, Mitigation of Sentence
- 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
John Mugambi Mucega
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive or improper in light of the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing the applicant after a plea of guilty.
- 3 Whether there are grounds for the High Court to interfere with the sentence under its revisionary jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court had properly exercised its sentencing discretion, taking into account both the statutory limits and the mitigating circumstances presented by the applicant. The sentence imposed—a fine of Kshs. 140,000 or two years' imprisonment in default—was within the statutory range and justified by the prevalence of illicit brews in the locality, which warranted a deterrent sentence. The same grounds advanced in the revision application had already been considered in mitigation at the trial. There was no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness in the proceedings or sentence to justify interference under the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction....
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is disallowed.
- The sentence of the trial court stands as imposed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 136 OF 2018
(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 329 of 2018 of the PM's Court at Marimanti)
JOHN MUGAMBI MUCEGA..................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...........................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The applicant herein JOHN MUGAMBI MUCEGA was charged with the offence of dealing in an Alcoholic Drink without licence contrary to Section 7(1) (b) as read with Section 62 of the Alcoholic Drink Control Act No. 4of 2010 vide Marimanti Principal Magistrate's Court Criminal Case No. 329 of 2018.
2. The record of proceedings from the trial court indicates that the applicant pleaded guilty to the offence and was therefore convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs.140,000/- or serve 2 years imprisonment in default. The particulars of the charge were that he was found selling 140 litres of "Nguzo" which is an illicit brew and which were found in 6 20 litre and 2 10 litre jerricans.
3. The applicant has now moved this court for revision of sentence vide a undated Notice of Motion file on 10th September 2018.
4. The applicant is asking this court to review the sentence and consider bonding him a non-custodial sentence on grounds that he has a family and is a bread winner of that family.
5. This court has called for the lower court file for purposes of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code and having gone through the file I am satisfied about the correctness, legality and propriety of the proceedings and findings of the trial court. The trial court meted out a sentence of a fine of 140,000/- or 2 years imprisonment in default of fine. The provisions of Section 62 of Alcoholic Drinks Act provides a penalty of upto 500,000/- or 3 years imprisonment or both. I have looked at the mitigating circumstances taken into consideration by the trial court and it is clear that the illicit brews in the locality had become a menace and hence the need for deterrent sentence. The trial court took into consideration all the relevant factors in the exercise of its discretion in meting out the sentence it handed out to the applicant. I have no basis to interfere with the discretion because I note that the same grounds in this application were raised by the applicant in mitigation.
In the premises this court finds no merit in this application. The same is disallowed. The applicant should use the period he has been given in the correctional facility to change and transform in order to be useful to the society once he serves his sentence so that when he is out he would probably stop his destructive ways by engaging instead on constructive ways to the society.
Dated, signed and delivered at Chuka this 19th day of February, 2019.
R.K. LIMO
JUDGE
19/2/2019
Ruling dated, signed and delivered in the open court in the presence of Momanyi for State and Applicant in person.
R.K. LIMO
JUDGE
19/2/2019