[2004] KEHC 1784 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate erred by sentencing the appellant to imprisonment without first ordering attachment of his property as required by Section 131(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant had shown cause for his inability to produce the accused or pay the recognisance, and the procedure...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1784 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Maximillan Nganda; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 61 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Legal Topics
- Surety Liability, Recognisance Forfeiture, Criminal Procedure Code Section 131, Appeal Against 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
Maximillan Nganda
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court followed the correct procedure under Section 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code in sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for failure to produce the accused or pay the recognisance.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive and justified under the circumstances.
- 3 Whether the magistrate had jurisdiction to withdraw the case under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code without an application from the prosecutor or Attorney General.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate erred by sentencing the appellant to imprisonment without first ordering attachment of his property as required by Section 131(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant had shown cause for his inability to produce the accused or pay the recognisance, and the procedure for enforcement against a surety was not properly followed. Additionally, the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to withdraw the case under Section 87(a) Criminal Procedure Code without a proper application. The sentence was therefore set aside, and the order withdrawing the case was revised and the case reinstated.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment is set aside.
- The order withdrawing the case under Section 87(a) Criminal Procedure Code is revised and the case is reinstated.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2004
(From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.
2229 of 2002 of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court’s at
Machakos: S. M. Kibunja Esq. on 4. 3.2004)
MAXIMILLAN NGANDA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
J U D G E M E N T
The appellant is one Maximillan Nganda who had stood surety for accused 1 in Cr.C. 2229/2002. The said accused absconded. On 26. 4.2003 he was allowed time to look for the said accused 1. After some mentions the surety also failed to attend court. By then the court had released him on bond. He was brought to court on 21. 1.2004 under arrest. He told the court that he had failed to get accused and admitted having failed to attend court. He did not have the 20,000/- for his own bond and 20,000/- which he had bound himself to pay when he stood surety. The court then sentenced him to serve 6 months imprisonment Contrary to Section 131 (4) Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant is dissatisfied with this order against which he appeals.
The proceedings do show that after the appellants arrest he conceded that he could not trace the accused nor could he be able to pay the recognisance. That was an explanation given by the appellant which amounts to him having shown cause as to why he could not produce the 1st accused or pay the recognisance.
The court then went ahead to sentence him to a prison term. In accordance with Section 131 Criminal Procedure Code. That was wrong. If sufficient cause is not shown by appellant the first step to be taken would have been to order the appellants property to be attached in accordance with Section 131 (2) Criminal Procedure Code and if the penalty was not paid or recovered by attachment then the magistrate would have invoked Section 131 (4) Criminal Procedure Code to sentence the appellant to prison. Appellants conduct of absconding may have contributed to how the magistrate decision in taking this drastic measure of imprisoning him. He was behaving just like the 1st accused had. I do agree that the court acted excessively by not considering the procedure in dealing with provisions of Section 131 Criminal Procedure Code.
I do allow the appeal and order that the said sentence be set aside.
It was noted that in the lower court the magistrate on his own motion went ahead to order the said case withdrawn under Section 87 (a) Criminal Procedure Code pending warrant of arrest. The magistrate had no jurisdiction to order a withdrawal of a case under Section 87 (a) Criminal Procedure Code unless an application to withdraw had been made by the prosecutor or it is made on the instructions of the Attorney General. This court accordingly revises the order of the magistrate under Section 362 Criminal Procedure Code made on 4. 3.2004 causing the case to be withdrawn under Section 87 (a) Criminal Procedure Code. The case is ordered reinstated.
The appellant has so far served 3 months out of the sentence of 6 months meted. The appellant was given the maximum sentence which I believe was excessive under the circumstances and I will order that the appellant be set free forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Right of appeal 14 days.
Dated, read and delivered at Machakos this 4th day of May 2004.
R. V. WENDOH
JUDGE
Read, dated and signed in the presence of Mr. Kizito for state.
R. V. WENDOH
JUDGE