[2017] KEHC 1939 (KLR)
The High Court held that the sentence imposed by the trial court was in accordance with section 102(1)(a) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. The court found no basis to interfere with the sentence, as it was lawful and intended to deter destruction of natural resources. The appellants' personal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1939 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Martin Njaati; Appellant: David Kamau; Appellant: Lawrence Mugambi Ntubirithi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 114, 119 & 118 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Wildlife Offences, Sentencing Guidelines, Protected Areas, Illegal Entry
- 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
Martin Njaati
Appellant
David Kamau
Appellant
Lawrence Mugambi Ntubirithi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court for entering a National Reserve without a permit was lawful and appropriate.
- 2 Whether there are grounds for appellate interference with the sentence imposed under section 102(1)(a) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the sentence imposed by the trial court was in accordance with section 102(1)(a) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. The court found no basis to interfere with the sentence, as it was lawful and intended to deter destruction of natural resources. The appellants' personal circumstances, including being breadwinners and expressing remorse, did not outweigh the need for deterrence and protection of the environment. The appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeals are dismissed.
- The sentence of the trial court is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2016
MARTIN NJAATI ................................................APPELLANT
versus
REPUBLIC........................................................RESPONDENT
Consolidated with
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2016
DAVID KAMAU....................................................APPELLANT
versus
REPUBLIC.........................................................RESPONDENT
Consolidated with
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2016
LAWRENCE MUGAMBI NTUBIRITHI..................APPELLANT
versus
REPUBLIC..........................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence in NanyukiChief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 998 of 2016 by Hon. W. J. GichimuPrincipal Magistrate on 2nd September 2016)
JUDGMENT
1. DAVID NJAATI, DAVID KAMAU and LAWRENCE MUGAMBI were charged before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nanyuki with the offence of entering into a National Reserve without a permit contrary to section 102 (1)(a) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. They pleaded guilty to the charge and were each sentenced to fine of kshs. 200,000 and in default 2 years imprisonment. The three have filed their appeal against that sentence.
2. In their various submission in support of their appeal the appellants submitted that they have aged parents, they were bread winners of their family and they were remorseful of the crime they had committed.
3. The facts narrated by the prosecution were that on 31st August 2016 at 1 pm while Kenya Wildlife Services rangers were carrying out their normal patrols within the Mount Kenya National Park they met the three appellants carrying fifteen posts of cedar tree. Each of the appellants were carrying a panga. All the three were unable to produce a permit allowing them to be in the national park.
4. I need to state that from the very outset that the sentence of the trial court is the sentence set out in section 102(1)(a) of the Wildlife Act. It therefore follows that the trial court sentence does not attract the interference of this court.
5. Having stated so it needs to be stated that the appellants in committing the offence were destroying precious natural sources of this country. A steep sentence such as the one they received from the trial court ought to deter not only the appellant but also any other person that might be persuaded to commit similar offence.
In view of the above finding the appellants’ appeals is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
DATED and DELIVERED at NANYUKI this 29th day of NOVEMBER 2017
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
CORAM
Before Justice Mary Kasango
Court Assistant: Njue/Mariastella
Appellant: Martin Njaati ..............................................................
David Kamau ............................................................
Lawrence Mugambi Ntubirithi ...............................
For the State: .................................................................................
Language:......................................................................................
COURT
Judgment delivered in open court.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE