[2015] KEHC 4864 (KLR)
The court found that the offences committed by the applicant were not of a serious nature and that he had already served two months in prison. The applicant appeared genuinely remorseful and had pleaded guilty. Taking into account his personal circumstances and the period already served, the court held that further...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 4864 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Ndirangu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 48 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application for revision allowed; applicant released forthwith
- Judges
- AW Macharia
- Legal Topics
- Traffic Offences, Sentencing Revision, Plea of Guilty, Mitigation, Public Service Vehicle Regulation
- 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 Ndirangu
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the applicant for traffic offences should be revised downwards.
- 2 Whether the period already served by the applicant constitutes sufficient punishment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the offences committed by the applicant were not of a serious nature and that he had already served two months in prison. The applicant appeared genuinely remorseful and had pleaded guilty. Taking into account his personal circumstances and the period already served, the court held that further imprisonment would not serve the interests of justice. The court exercised its discretion to revise the sentence, substituting the remaining custodial sentences with an order for immediate release, finding that the punishment already served was sufficient.
Court Disposition
application for revision allowed; applicant released forthwith
Orders
- The sentences imposed on the applicant are substituted with an order for immediate release.
- The applicant be and is hereby forthwith set free.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.48 OF 2015
JOSEPH NDIRANGU…………………………........…………....….APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………………………..……………………..RESPONDENT
RULING
Joseph Ndirangu the applicant herein was charged with five traffic offences as follows:-
Count I
Picking/Setting down passengers at a place unauthorized as a bus stop/terminal contrary to Rule 64(1) as read with rule 96 of the Traffic Amendment Rules Cap 403 Laws of Kenya.
Count II
Causing obstruction contrary to Section 53(1) of the Traffic Act Cap 403 Laws of Kenya punishable by section 53(d)(a) of the Traffic Amendment No.2 Act of 2012.
Count III
Failing to wear public service vehicle uniform contrary to Section 103 A(1)(2) of the Traffic Amendment Act of 2012 Cap 403 Laws of Kenya punishable by Section 103A(7) of the Said Act.
Count IV
Failing to wear public service badge contrary to Section 103(1) (3) of the Traffic Amendment Act of 2012 Cap 403 Laws of Kenya punishable by Section 103A(7) of the said Act.
Count V
Driving a public service vehicle on a public road without the drivers public service license contrary to Section 98(I) of the Traffic Act Cap 403 Laws of Kenya.
He was convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced as follows:-
Count I and II – fined Kshs.20, 000/- each in default one month imprisonment.
Count III – fined Kshs.1, 000/- in default one imprisonment.
Count IV and V – fined Kshs.5, 000/- each in default one month imprisonment.
The sentences were to run concurrently.
By Chamber Summons dated 18th March, 2015, the applicant asks the court to revise the sentences downwards. He states that he is a young married man with a sick wife and two school going children who wholly depend on him. He also states that he is remorseful and has reformed since his imprisonment.The Learned State Counsel Miss. Aluda did not oppose the application.
The court has taken into account that the applicant has so far served two calendar months and that the offences which the applicant was charged with were not so serious. He looked very remorseful in court and in the court’s view he must have learnt his lesson for the period he has served the sentence. Although the applicant having pleaded guilty, redress lies in an appeal, this court is of the view that the period served in prison is sufficient punishment. Accordingly the court substitutes the sentences with an order that the applicant be and is hereby forthwith set free.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 12th day of MAY, 2015.
G. W. NGENYE – MACHARIA
JUDGE