[2015] KEHC 7017 (KLR)
The court found that while the trial court correctly applied the immigration laws, it failed to consider that the Applicant, as a Somali national fleeing insecurity, was entitled to be treated as a prima facie refugee. The court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the sentence and repatriation order,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 7017 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mohamed Maalim Abudullah; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 98 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence and Repatriation Order
- Outcome
- application allowed; sentence and repatriation order set aside; applicant to be processed for refugee status
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Immigration Offences, Sentencing Review, Refugee Status Determination, Repatriation Orders
- 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
Mohamed Maalim Abudullah
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence and Repatriation Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the Applicant was excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial court failed to consider the Applicant's prima facie refugee status due to insecurity in Somalia.
- 3 Whether the Applicant should be repatriated to Somalia or handed over to the Department of Refugee Affairs for determination of refugee status.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the trial court correctly applied the immigration laws, it failed to consider that the Applicant, as a Somali national fleeing insecurity, was entitled to be treated as a prima facie refugee. The court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the sentence and repatriation order, substituting them with an order for the Applicant to be handed over to the Department of Refugee Affairs for determination of his refugee status. The court emphasized that the interests of justice and the prevailing insecurity in Somalia warranted this approach, especially as the State did not oppose the application.
Court Disposition
application allowed; sentence and repatriation order set aside; applicant to be processed for refugee status
Orders
- The sentences imposed on the Applicant are set aside.
- The Applicant is to be handed over to the Department of Refugee Affairs to process his refugee status.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.98 OF 2014
MOHAMED MAALIM ABUDULLAH…………………..........………………………..APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………….……….…………………………………………......RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, Mohamed Maalim Abudullah was charged with the offences under the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act 2011. He was charged with knowing possessing and using a passport in which a visa had been forged contrary to Section 54(1)(c) of the Act. He was also charged with failing to report entry contrary to Section 16(1)(a)(6) as read with Section 57 of the Act. He was finally charged with being unlawfully present in Kenya contrary to Section 53(1)(j) of the Act. When the Applicant was arraigned before this court, he pleaded guilty to the charges and was fined a total of Kshs.1 million or in default he was to serve three (3) years imprisonment. On completion of the sentence, the trial magistrate ordered the Applicant to be repatriated to Somalia. The Applicant moved this court to have the sentences that were meted on him reviewed. The Applicant states that he pleaded guilty to the charge but the sentence that was meted on him was excessive in the circumstances. He stated that he was a man of little means and could not afford the fine that was imposed on him. He was apprehensive that if the repatriation order was given effect to, he would be taken to a country which still suffers from serious insecurity.
At the hearing of the application, Mr. Nyaribo for the Applicant reiterated the contents of the application. He submitted that the Applicant had stayed in remand custody for six (6) months before he pleaded guilty to the charges. He stated that the fine and the custodial sentence that was imposed on the Applicant was excessive. He took issue with the fact that the trial magistrate did not take into consideration that Somalia was a war torn country and therefore it will not be possible for the authorities to repatriate the Applicant to Somalia. He urged the court to direct that the Applicant be surrendered to the Department of Refugee Affairs to process and determine the Applicant’s refugee status. Ms. Aluda for the State was not opposed to the proposal made by the Applicant that he be handed over to the Department of Refugee Affairs to determine his refugee status.
This court has carefully considered the facts of this case. The Applicant invoked the revisionary jurisdiction of the court under Section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under the above sections of the law, this court has power to call for and examine any criminal proceedings to determine the correctness, legality and propriety of any verdict or sentence. In the present case, whereas it was evident that the trial court properly appreciated the immigration laws of this country, it was clear that the trial court did not take into consideration that any Somali citizen who has fled from Somalia on account of insecurity in that country is considered to be a prima facie refugee unless the contrary is established. The Applicant in the present case is clearly a prima facie refugee subject to his refugee status being determined by the Department of Refugee Affairs.
In the premises therefore, since the State is not opposed to the application made by the Applicant, the sentences imposed on the Applicant are set aside and substituted by an order of this court directing that the Applicant be handed over to the Department of Refugee Affairs to process his refugee status. In that regard, the Applicant shall be taken to Dadaab Refugee Camp for the purposes of the determination of his refugee status. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
L. KIMARU
JUDGE