[2022] KEHC 13151 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court's record clearly indicated the appellant was not present in court to take plea, yet a plea of guilty was purportedly entered and a conviction and sentence followed. This was a fundamental procedural irregularity, rendering the proceedings, conviction, and sentence unlawful and a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 13151 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Hassan Matende; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E24 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- JR Karanja
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Procedure, Plea Taking, Conviction Irregularity
- 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
Hassan Matende
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a conviction can stand where the accused did not appear in court to take plea.
- 2 Whether the proceedings and sentence were lawful in the absence of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court's record clearly indicated the appellant was not present in court to take plea, yet a plea of guilty was purportedly entered and a conviction and sentence followed. This was a fundamental procedural irregularity, rendering the proceedings, conviction, and sentence unlawful and a nullity. The court held that a person cannot be sentenced for an offence for which he did not take plea, and any such conviction is improper. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, the sentence set aside, and the fine ordered to be refunded. The matter was directed to be retried before a different magistrate of competent jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appellant's conviction is quashed.
- The sentence imposed upon the appellant is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Matende v Republic (Criminal Appeal E24 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 13151 (KLR) (29 September 2022) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 13151 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Busia
Criminal Appeal E24 of 2022
JR Karanja, J
September 29, 2022
Between
Hassan Matende
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Judgment
1. The appellant was charged before the Chief Magistrate’s court at Busia with one count of driving a laden motor vehicle on a road exceeding the maximum dimensions permitted for such a vehicle contrary to S 55 (2) as read with S 58 of the Traffic Act, Cap 403 Laws of Kenya.
2. The particulars were that on June 13, 2022 at about 1400 hours along Busia /Kisumu Road at the Busia Weighbride being the driver of m/v Reg No UBU 691L Trailer UAF 9769 make Nissan, the appellant drove the said m/vehicle with a length projection of 18. 7 metres of the vehicle body against the permissible 17. 4 metres hence exceeding 1. 3 metres.
3. The appellant was expected to appear before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Busia on June 14, 2022 for the charge to be read to him and for him to take the plea. The record of the trial court clearly indicates that the appellant did not appear in court either personally or through counsel yet the trial court purported to enter a plea of guilty, I treat the facts as per particulars and proceeded to convict the accused/appellant and eventually pass a sentence of kshs 400,000/= fine and in default, two years imprisonment.
4. Clearly, the record shows that the accused did not appear in court for plea and it was therefore not possible for him to answer to the charge and plead guilty unless he was a “ghost”.
5. It would follow that the proceedings or purported proceedings of June 14,2022 before the trial court were irregular defective and a sham.
6. For this reason alone, grounds one and two of the appeals are meritable and are hereby sustained with the resultant effect that ground three must also and is hereby sustained for the mere fact that the appellant’s conviction was improper and unlawful.
7. A person cannot be sentenced for an offence for which he did not take plea and if he did, he was not properly convicted.
8. It is no wonder that the respondent conceded the appeal without much ado.
9. In sum, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellant’s conviction be and is hereby quashed and the sentence imposed upon him set aside with orders that the fine paid by the appellant be released to him forthwith and the matter be retried before a different magistrate of competent jurisdiction. Ordered accordingly.
J R KARANJAHJ U D G EDated, Delivered & Signed this 29TH day of SEPTEMBER 2022