[2021] KEHC 6805 (KLR)
The applicant failed to demonstrate any incorrectness, illegality, or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial court. The High Court, in exercising its revisionary jurisdiction, is bound by the requirement that such defects be shown before interfering with the sentence. The sentences imposed were not only...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 6805 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Martha S. Awetha; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E050 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Trafficking in Persons, Custodial Vs Non Custodial Sentence
- 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
Martha S. Awetha
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated incorrectness, illegality, or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial court.
- 2 Whether the High Court should revise the applicant's custodial sentence to a non-custodial sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to demonstrate any incorrectness, illegality, or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial court. The High Court, in exercising its revisionary jurisdiction, is bound by the requirement that such defects be shown before interfering with the sentence. The sentences imposed were not only lawful but also lenient compared to the statutory minimum for trafficking in persons. The applicant's request to convert the remaining custodial sentence to a non-custodial one lacks merit as there is no legal basis for revision in the absence of any demonstrated error or impropriety in the original sentencing. Accordingly, the application for revision is dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E050OF 2020
MARTHAS AWETHIA.............................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC............................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
This matter comes up before the court for the application of the applicant, MARTHA S. AWETHA, file herein on 1. 9.2020. The same, however, is silent on the relief sought thereunder. It is in the affidavit in support of the application that the applicant has prayed for revision of her sentence. She seeks that the remaining period of her sentence which is 2 years, be changed to a non-custodial sentence.
The prosecution has opposed this application, basically on grounds that the sentences were lawful and lenient in view of the sentence of 30 years imprisonment for the offence of trafficking. Counsel prayed that this application be dismissed.
I have considered the application before the court and the submissions of the Respondent in opposing the same. This application seeks that this court do exercise its powers of revision to alter the sentence meted out against the applicant, by the lower court. Under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code;
“The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court.”
And section 364 of the Act, gives directions as to the specific orders that the court may give in exercise of its revisionary powers.
From the above provisions, it is incumbent upon the applicant to prove the existence of the incorrectness, illegality and impropriety in the aggrieved orders of the subordinate court. It is only upon such proof that this court may exercise its powers of revision. With respect, the applicant has not passed this test, having failed to prove any such incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the ordered of the trial court.
I have considered the judgment of the trial court and the sentence passed, the applicant was convicted on counts I, II, III and IV. These were charges of trafficking in persons contrary section 3(1)(3) as read with section 3(5) of the Counter Trafficking in persons Act, No. 8 of 2010. The sentences for each of those counts are:
“……. Imprisonment for a term of not less than 30 years or to a fine of not less than 30 million shillings or to both, and upon subsequent conviction, to imprisonment for life.”
On all the counts the appellant was convicted on, the court sentenced her to serve 5 years’ imprisonment. Without a doubt, these sentences were not only legal, but also lenient. For the sentence on count 5, 6 months. I note that the applicant has already served the same and so, same is not subject of this application.
Consequently, I am not convinced that this application has any merit. I dismiss it accordingly.
D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
24. 5.2021.
Court:
Ruling read out in court (online) in the presence applicant and Mr. Naulikha for the state.
D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
24. 5.2021.