[2004] KEHC 2410 (KLR)
The court found that the conviction for causing death by dangerous driving was proper and supported by overwhelming evidence, including eyewitness testimony and the appellant's excessive speed. However, the sentence imposed by the trial court was unlawful because the appellant was convicted and fined on two counts...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 2410 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Juma Moses Mandita; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 110 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_partially_allowed
- Legal Topics
- Dangerous Driving, Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, Sentencing Principles, Traffic 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
Juma Moses Mandita
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for causing death by dangerous driving was proper.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the conviction for causing death by dangerous driving was proper and supported by overwhelming evidence, including eyewitness testimony and the appellant's excessive speed. However, the sentence imposed by the trial court was unlawful because the appellant was convicted and fined on two counts for a single act of dangerous driving resulting in two deaths, contrary to established legal principle. Furthermore, the default imprisonment term of three years exceeded the statutory maximum of six months for a fine of KES 40,000 under Section 28 of the Penal Code. The court therefore set aside the original sentence and substituted it with a single fine of KES 40,000 or, in...
Court Disposition
appeal_partially_allowed
Orders
- Conviction upheld.
- Sentence set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII TRAFFIC APPEAL NO.110 OF 2003 (From original conviction and sentence of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Nyamira in Traffic Case No.271 of 2002 - K. W. KIARIE ESQ., S.R.M)
JUMA MOSES MANDITA ………………………………………….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………………………...………………………. RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Appellant was convicted on two counts of causing death by dangerous driving c/s. 46 of the Traffic Act by the S.R.M Nyamira and fined shs.20,000/= on each count or 15 months on each count. He appealed against the conviction and sentence. However when his counsel was submitting after the State Counsel he asked court to find that the conviction was proper but the sentence was not. I presumed he abandoned the appeal against the conviction. He possibly realised the conviction was proper. The evidence in the lower court was overwhelming. The appellant was driving at excessive speed at the time. He was unable to control the vehicle after it hit a pot hole. It left the road and ploughed into a garden hitting two children.
Court was told that the owner of m/v did not comply with S.111 Traffic Act as he had not kept records of the driver. This may be so but there was enough evidence to show appellant was the one driving. Prosecution called witnesses who were in the vehicle. They had even told accused not to drive at excessive speed. I therefore find the conviction was safe and dismiss the appeal against it.
As to the sentence appellant should have been found guilty for one offence. Indeed two people died but it was a result of one act of dangerous driving. In case of ATITO V. R. EA(1975) 278 which the learned magistrate referred to it was held the number of deaths is immaterial. The appellant was fined on two counts. This was not proper.
In total the appellant was fined to shs.40,000/= in default 3 years imprisonment. The question is whether this was harsh. Two people had lost their lives. I do believe that when the magistrate sentenced appellant to a total fine of shs.40,000/= he was considering the totality of the whole accident. The figure of shs.40,000/= therefore is not excessive when one considers that two lives were lost. A fine of shs.40,000/= is not excessive. The only other thing is the default sentence of imprisonment for 3 years. S.46 of the Traffic Act do not provide for fining but where a magistrate opts for the same then he should be guided by S.28 of the Penal Code as amended by Act No.5 of 2003. The Section shows the maximum period which a person can be sentenced to in default of a fine. It provides that where one is sentence to a fine of minimum of shs.15,000/= but not exceeding shs.50,000/= the maximum period is 6 months. Shs.40,000/= does not exceed shs.50,000/= and as such appellant should not have been sentenced to more than 6 months. The sentence of 3 years is therefore illegal.
In the circumstances I set aside the sentence imposed and substitute it with one of a fine of shs.40,000/= in default to 6 months imprisonment.
Delivered and signed on 1/3/04.
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE.
Mr. Chirchir for state.
Mr. Ondari for Accused.
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE.