[2017] KEHC 1507 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate was reasonable and within the statutory limits for the offence of driving under the influence. The applicant's inability to pay the fine and alleged sickness were not sufficient grounds for revision, especially as there was no evidence of illness...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1507 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenneth Murunga A; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 27 November 2017
- Case Number
- Revision Case 196 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application for revision dismissed; original sentence upheld
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Driving Under Influence, Mitigation Factors, Traffic Offences
- 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
Kenneth Murunga A
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed for driving under the influence was excessive and should be revised downward.
- 2 Whether the applicant's inability to pay the fine and alleged sickness justify a non-custodial sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate was reasonable and within the statutory limits for the offence of driving under the influence. The applicant's inability to pay the fine and alleged sickness were not sufficient grounds for revision, especially as there was no evidence of illness presented and the applicant did not raise these issues during mitigation. The court emphasized that poverty does not excuse endangering public safety, and that the applicant's conduct warranted the sentence imposed. The application for revision was therefore dismissed and the original sentence upheld.
Court Disposition
application for revision dismissed; original sentence upheld
Orders
- The request for revision of sentence is dismissed.
- The applicant shall continue to serve the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate on 06.11.2017.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
REVISION NO. 196 OF 2017
BETWEEN
KENNETH MURUNGA A.......................................APPLICANT
AND
REPUBLIC........................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. I have seen and carefully read the inmates letter dated 20. 11. 2017 in which the inmate prays for revision of the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial magistrate on 06. 11. 2017. The inmate was charged with the offence of driving under the influence of drink contrary to section 44(1) of the Traffic Act, Cap 403 of the Laws of Kenya. It was alleged he committed the offence on 06. 11. 2017 at 0331hours within Mama Watoto area within Kakamega town.
2. When he appeared for plea before the trial court, he pleaded guilty to the charge and thereafter he admitted the facts where upon he was convicted on his on plea and fined kshs.50,000/= (fifty Thousand) in default imprisonment for 6 months. He was said to be a first offender as the State did not have his previous criminal records. This is the sentence the inmate is asking the court to revise downwards to a non-custodial sentence or any other sentence that this court may find appropriate to impose.
3. The reasons why the inmate is asking the court to revise the sentence are two fold;-
a) that he is unable to raise the fine as he is from poor family.
b) that he is sickly.
Though the inmate does not say so, this application is made under the provisions of Section 362 – 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 of the Laws of Kenya
4. Regarding the fine, I note that the offence carries a maximum fine of Kenya Shillings one hundred thousand in default imprisonment of twenty months. In my considered view, the sentence meted out by the trial court was reasonable. As to the allegation that the inmate is sickly, the record of the learned trial court does not know how that the inmate raised the issue of his sickness when he was given a chance to mitigate. He only said that he was trying to reach home as he was drunk. Secondly the inmate has not annexed any documents to his letter in support of his claim that he is sickly. In any event, that reason alone would not form a basis for revision of the sentence. Further the prisons have medical facilities at which inmates can be treated in case they are sick. In cases where sickness may be more serious than what the prison medical facilities can manage, orders can be granted by the court for treatment at other government medical facilities outside the prison
5. I would also like to state here that the fact that the inmate may be coming from a poor family does not give him a licence to drink himself silly to the point of endangering not only his life, but the lives of other road users. The inmate is therefore a danger to others if he is not given adequate time to learn his lesson from a longer prison sentence. The inmate also alleges that his parents depend on him for their upkeep. From the record, the inmate never indicated, during mitigation, that he was his parents’ brad winner. I also find that his level of drunkenness does not indicate that he is a responsible son.
6. From all the above, I find that the request for revision of sentence is not merited and the same is accordingly dismissed. The inmate shall continue to serve the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial magistrate on 06. 11. 2017
It is so ordered.
Ruling given, dated and signed at Kakamega this 27th day of November, 2017
RUTH N SITATI
JUDGE