[2017] KEHC 6927 (KLR)
The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial court was within the statutory minimum prescribed by section 102(1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013. The appellant's personal circumstances, including reformation and skills gained in prison, do not provide a legal basis for interfering with...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6927 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Lawrence Muthuri Riungu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 23 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Wildlife Offences, Sentencing Guidelines, Protected Areas, Possession of Snares
- 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
Lawrence Muthuri Riungu
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was lawful under section 102(1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013.
- 2 Whether the appellant's reformation and skills gained in prison warrant interference with the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial court was within the statutory minimum prescribed by section 102(1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013. The appellant's personal circumstances, including reformation and skills gained in prison, do not provide a legal basis for interfering with a sentence that is lawful and within the statutory limits. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed as lacking merit.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2016
LAWRENCE MUTHURI RIUNGU …………………………… APPELLANT
versus
REPUBLIC………….……………………….......…………… RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence by Hon. W. J. GICHIMU – PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE dated 31st August 2015 in Nanyuki Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 64 of 2015)
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant LAWRENCE MUTHURI RIUNGU was convicted before the Chief Magistrate’ Court Nanyuki of the offence of being within a protected area in possession of snares without authorisation contrary to section 102 (1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013 (Wildlife Act). After his conviction he was sentenced to pay a fine of kshs.200,000 and in default to serve 2 years imprisonment.
2. The appellant has filed this appeal against the trial court sentence. He has based his appeal on the ground that he has reformed since the imprisoned and has gained valuable skills in prison.
3. Under section 102 of the Wildlife Act the minimum sentence thereof is a fine of kshs. 200,000 and in default imprisonment of 2 years or both such fine and imprisonment. Bearing in mind that provision of that section it follows that the trial court did not err in the sentence it meted out to the appellant. That sentence was within the law.
4. On that ground the appellant’s appeal against sentence has no merit and is dismissed.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 28th DAY OF MARCH 2017.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
CORAM
Before Justice Mary Kasango
Court Assistant: Ndungu
Appellant: Lawrence Muthuri Riungu
For the State: …....................................
COURT
Judgment delivered in open court.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE