[2005] KEHC 1618 (KLR)
The court found that the plea of guilty was not properly taken because the facts were not read to the accused persons as required by law, rendering the plea equivocal and insufficient to support a conviction. Additionally, the trial magistrate failed to consider the accused persons' mitigation and past records...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1618 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Natwat & 10 Others; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Revision Case 56 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Judgment on Revision
- Outcome
- conviction quashed and sentence set aside
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Plea Procedure, Sentencing Principles, Traditional Liquor Offences
- 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
Joseph Natwat & 10 Others
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Judgment on Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plea of guilty was properly taken in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was justified and based on relevant material factors.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plea of guilty was not properly taken because the facts were not read to the accused persons as required by law, rendering the plea equivocal and insufficient to support a conviction. Additionally, the trial magistrate failed to consider the accused persons' mitigation and past records before sentencing, and did not justify the imposition of a high fine close to the statutory maximum. These procedural irregularities constituted a misdirection, warranting the exercise of the court's revisionary powers to quash the conviction and set aside the sentence.
Court Disposition
conviction quashed and sentence set aside
Orders
- The conviction is quashed.
- The sentence is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
Revision Case 56 of 2003
JOSEPH NATWAT & 10 OTHERS……………………….APPELLANTS
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………….……………………………..DEFENDANT
The applicants pleaded guilty to a charge of being in possession of traditional liguor contrary to section 25(1) as read with section 25(4) of the Traditional Liquor Act. The particulars are that on the 25th day of September, 2003, at Nambaone village, Nasusi Sublocation, Maeni Location, Bungoma District within Western Province were jointly found being in possession of traditional liquor, busaa to wit fifty five (55) litres without a permit from the Authority in contravention of the Act.
They were each convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Ksh.5,000/= and in default to serve 3 months imprisonment. The senior state counsel referred this matter to this Court to consider the Judgment on revision under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The records availed to this Court shows that the applicants pleaded guilty to the charge without the facts being read. It is clear that the prosecutor did not read the facts as required under the Provisions of the Criminal Procedure code. She only stated as follows:-
Facts as per charge sheet.”
In the circumstances since the every ingredient of the charge had not been explained to the accused persons, the plea was not sufficient to amount to a plea of guilty. Consequently, there was no competent plea to support a conviction.
The record also reveals that the accused persons past records were not provided to the trial Court before sentence. The accused person’s mitigated but the trial magistrate did not note that he considered their mitigations. Consequently, it is clear that the sentencing magistrate did not take into account relevant material factors before sentencing the accused persons. This is a great misdirection which led to the trial magistrate tendering a sentence of high fines of Ksh.5000/=. The law under liquor Act sets a maximum fine of Ksh.6000/=. The trial magistrate did not justify a fine of Ksh.5000/=.
In the end, I think this is a proper case which I should exercise my discretion on revision in favour of the applicants.
The upshot therefore is that the conviction is quashed and the sentence set aside.
Dated this 15th day of October, 2004.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE