Mirriam Muringe v Republic [2021] KEHC 5826 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 5826 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- DO Ogembo
- Case number
- Criminal Case 49 of 2017
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- DO Ogembo
- Case number
- Criminal Case 49 of 2017
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the original probation order did not contain a default clause specifying consequences for breach. Both the probation officer and the accused demonstrated willingness to proceed with the probation programme. The court exercised its discretion to re-admit the accused to probation on the same terms as previously ordered, with the probation period to commence afresh from the date of the ruling.
Court disposition
Accused re-admitted to probation for 3 years on original terms, probation to run from date of order.
Orders
- The convict/subject is placed on probation for 3 years on the same terms as ordered on 5.3.2020, with the probation period to run from the date of this order.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mirriam Muringe
DefendantDirector of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
Respondent Counsel: Ms. KimaniAmounts and remedies
- Probation Term (years): 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Breach of Probation and Re Admission
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused should be re-admitted to probation after failing to commence the original probation sentence.
- 02
Whether the absence of a default clause in the original probation order affects the court's options upon breach.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The accused explained her failure to commence probation was due to COVID-19 restrictions, which made it impossible to contact probation officers. She expressed willingness to now serve the probation term, and the probation officer confirmed readiness to supervise her.
- Respondent
- The state, through Ms. Kimani, did not object to re-admission to probation but submitted that if a default clause existed in the original order, it should be enforced.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Probation of Offenders Act (Cap 64), general sentencing principles
A court may re-admit an offender to probation if the original order did not specify a default sentence and the probation officer is willing to supervise.
- 02
Sentencing proceedings and judicial discretion
Where a default clause is absent in a probation order, the court retains discretion to determine the appropriate response to breach.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the original probation order did not contain a default clause specifying consequences for breach. Both the probation officer and the accused demonstrated willingness to proceed with the probation programme. The court exercised its discretion to re-admit the accused to probation on the same terms as previously ordered, with the probation period to commence afresh from the date of the ruling.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted the subject did not commence the terms as ordered by the court but considered the explanation regarding COVID-19 restrictions.
- The willingness of both the probation officer and the accused to proceed with probation was a significant factor in the court's decision.
Court disposition
Accused re-admitted to probation for 3 years on original terms, probation to run from date of order.
- The convict/subject is placed on probation for 3 years on the same terms as ordered on 5.3.2020, with the probation period to run from the date of this order.
Source and reliance status
High Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 49 OF 2017
MIRRIAM MURINGE..............................................................ACCUSED
VERSUS
DPP..............................................................................................REPUBLIC
RULING
The offender herein MIRRIAM MURINGE had been sentenced by the court to serve a 3-year non-custodial probation sentence. This was on 5. 3.2020. She however failed to serve as ordered, but rather, stayed away till 15. 6.2021 when she was arrested and brought back to court following execution of warrants of arrest issued by the court.
The offender has given an explanation that the Corona Virus with its restrictions came up immediately she came out of prison and that she was unable to reach out to the probation officers. The probation officer Ms. Kanyangi, was confirmed willingness in taking the subject into the probation programme.
Ms. Kimani, for the state, did not object to this request. The counsel however, made a rider that in case the order placing the subject to probationary terms had a default clause, then the court should enforce the default sentence.
I have considered the sentence proceedings of the court on 5. 3.2020. The Honourable Judge did not impose any default clause to the term of probation. Also considered is the willingness of the convict/subject to serve through to probation terms and the probation officer’s own willingness and plea that she be re-admitted to the programme. Also noted is that the subject did not commence the terms as ordered by the court.
I hereby order that the convict/subject herein be placed on probation for 3 years on the same terms as ordered on 5. 3.2020. The terms of probation shall run from the date of this order. Orders accordingly
D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
30. 6.2021.
Court:
Ruling read in court in presence of the convict (Langata Women), Ms. Kimani for the state, and Ms. Kanyangi Probation Officer.
D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
30. 6.2021.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.