[2017] KEHC 5063 (KLR)
The court held that the trial court imposed the sentence strictly in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 95 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. The appellants' personal circumstances, including family dependency and claimed reformation, could not override the statutory minimum...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 5063 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Samuel Longopia; Appellant: Ldumunye Leprikine; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 95 & 96 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Wildlife Offences, Sentencing Guidelines, Possession of Wildlife Trophy
- 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
Samuel Longopia
Appellant
Ldumunye Leprikine
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed under Section 95 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act was lawful and appropriate.
- 2 Whether the appellants' personal circumstances warranted interference with the mandatory sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the trial court imposed the sentence strictly in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 95 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. The appellants' personal circumstances, including family dependency and claimed reformation, could not override the statutory minimum sentence. The appellate court found no legal basis to interfere with the sentence, as the law prescribes a minimum penalty and the trial court did not exceed or depart from this requirement. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed and the original sentences confirmed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence by Samuel Longopia and Ldumunye Leprikine is dismissed.
- The trial court's sentences are confirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2016
LDUMUNYE LEPRIKIME..................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC......................................RESPONDENT
CONSOLIDATED
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2016
SAMUEL LONGOPIA...........................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.........................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence by Hon. C N Ndegwa –principal Magistrate dated 20th November 2015 in Maralal Principal Magistrate Court Criminal Case No. 868 of 2014)
JUDGMENT
1. SAMUEL LONGOPIAAND LDUMUNYE LEPRIKINEwere charged before the Principal Magistrate’s Court Maralal with the offence of being in possession of wildlife trophy, namely two elephant tusks, Contrary to Section 95 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013 (Wildlife Act). After trial they were convicted and each of them sentenced to pay fine of Ksh. 1 Million and in default to serve five years jail sentence.
2. The two appellants have appealed against the sentence. In their submissions the appellants submitted that their families are dependent on them that they are now reformed having being in jail now for one year and three months.
3. Section 95 of the Wildlife Act provides:
“ Any person who keeps or is found in possession of awildlife trophy or deals in a wildlife trophy, or manufactures any item from a trophy without a permit issued under this Act or exempt in accordance with any other provision of this Act, commits an offence and shall be liable upon conviction to a fine of not less than one million shillings or imprisonment for a term on not less than five years or to both such imprisonment and fee”.
4. The trial court on convicting the appellants of possession of two elephant tusks sentenced the appellants in accordance to what is provided in Section 95 of the wildlife Act. The sentence was the prescribed sentence under that Act. Section 66(1) of the interpretation and General Provisions Act provides:
“ Where in a written law a penalty is prescribed for an offence under that written law, that provision shall, unless a contrary intention appears, mean that the offence shall be punished by a penalty not exceeding the penalty prescribed.”
5. The appellants having been sentenced to the penalty prescribed under Section 95 of the Wildlife Actfail in their appeal against sentence. Accordingly the appeal against sentence bySAMUEL LONGOPIAandLDUMUNYE LEPRIKINE are hereby dismissed. The trial court’s sentences are confirmed.
Dated and Delivered at Nanyuki this 14th JUNE 2017
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Coram
Before Justice Mary Kasango
Court Assistant: Njue/Mariastella
1st Appellant: Samuel Longopia
2nd Appellant: Ldumunye Leprikine
For state: ............................................
Language............................................
COURT
Judgment delivered in open court
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE