[2024] KEHC 11613 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, having served eight months in custody for offences under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, had undergone sufficient punishment to meet the objectives of sentencing. The sentence review report was favourable, recommending probation. Exercising its revisionary powers...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 11613 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Violet Goiza Ouma; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Revision Case E476 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- sentence revised; remainder to be served on probation
- Judges
- HM Nyaga
- Legal Topics
- Wildlife Offences, Protected Areas, Sentencing Revision, Probation 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
Violet Goiza Ouma
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's sentence for entering a protected area and undertaking extractive activity without a permit should be revised.
- 2 Whether the time already served in custody is sufficient punishment for the offences committed.
- 3 Whether the applicant qualifies to serve the remainder of her sentence on probation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, having served eight months in custody for offences under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, had undergone sufficient punishment to meet the objectives of sentencing. The sentence review report was favourable, recommending probation. Exercising its revisionary powers under Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution and Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court held that the remainder of the applicant's sentence should be served on probation, as further incarceration was unnecessary for deterrence or rehabilitation.
Court Disposition
sentence revised; remainder to be served on probation
Orders
- The remainder of the applicant's sentence shall be served on probation.
- Terms of probation to be explained to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Ouma v Republic (Revision Case E476 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 11613 (KLR) (30 September 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 11613 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Revision Case E476 of 2024
HM Nyaga, J
September 30, 2024
Between
Violet Goiza Ouma
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The accused person (Applicant) was charged with the following offences;Count IEntering into a protected area without a permit or any other lawful exemption Contrary to Section 102 (1) (a) as read with Section 102(1) (h) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. On the 9th day of January, 2024 at around 1329 hours, at 41 area in Lake Nakuru National Park, Nakuru West Sub County within Nakuru County at GPS co-ordinates 37M 0175662 UTM 9965388, you were found to have entered into a protected area on foot without a permit from the Director General Kenya Wildlife Service.Count IIUndertaking extractive activity in Wildlife Protected Area without a permit or any other lawful exemption Contrary to Section 102(1) (g) as read with Section 102 (1) (h) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013. On the 9th day of Januaary, 2024 at around 1329 hours, at 41 area in Lake Nakuru National Park, Nakuru West Sub County within Nakuru County at GPS co-ordinates 37M 0175662 UTM 9965388, you were found undertaking extractive activity namely fishing and you were in possession of one fishing net, four (4 kgs) kilograms of fish and one sack without a permit from the Director General, Kenya Wildlife Service.
2. She pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Kshs. 200,000/= in default one (2) years imprisonment on each count.
3. This file has been brought to this court for revision under the prisons decongestion exercise.
4. The sentence review report on the applicant is favourable to her serving the remainder of her sentence on probation.
5. I have noted that the applicant has been in custody for eight (8) months now. I believe that the time spent in prison has been sufficient to teach her any lesson that the trial court intended her to learn.
6. In exercise of the powers of the court under Article 165 (6) and (7) of the Constitution and Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). I review the sentence for the applicant and order that the remainder of her sentence shall be served on probation. Terms will be explained to her.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024. H. M. NYAGAJUDGEIn the presence of;C/A JenifferN/A for state