[2006] KEHC 1914 (KLR)
The court held that Section 64 of the Weights and Measures Act is permissive, not mandatory, in its language. The use of the word 'may' indicates that prosecution of offences under the Act can be undertaken by either an inspector appointed under Section 54 or a police prosecutor. Therefore, the proceedings before...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1914 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Macharia; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Revision 1 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for revision dismissed; sentence substituted.
- Legal Topics
- Prosecution by Police, Weights and Measures Offences, Sentencing Substitution
- 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
Peter Macharia
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether proceedings conducted by a police prosecutor under the Weights and Measures Act are a nullity.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that Section 64 of the Weights and Measures Act is permissive, not mandatory, in its language. The use of the word 'may' indicates that prosecution of offences under the Act can be undertaken by either an inspector appointed under Section 54 or a police prosecutor. Therefore, the proceedings before the trial magistrate conducted by a police prosecutor were not a nullity. Regarding sentencing, the court found the original custodial sentence of three months to be lenient but, considering the accused's family obligations, substituted the custodial sentence with a fine of Ksh.20,000. In default of payment, the accused is to serve three months imprisonment on each count, with...
Court Disposition
Application for revision dismissed; sentence substituted.
Orders
- The custodial sentence is substituted with a fine of Ksh.20,000/=.
- In default of payment, the accused to serve three months imprisonment on each count.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
Revision 1 of 2006
PETER MACHARIA..............................................................................................................APPLICANT
VS
REPUBLIC.........................................................................................................................PROSECUTOR
REVISION
I have been asked to declare that proceedings before the trial Magistrate on 26th January 2006 were a nullity as the same was done by a police prosecutor.
In this regard, I have been referred by counsel to Section 54 and 64 of the Weights and Measures Act (Cap 513) Laws of Kenya.
Section 54 provides:
1 “The minister may from time to time for the purposes of this Act, appoint inspectors from among persons holding certificates of qualification for the efficient discharge of the functions conferred or imposed upon them by this Act.
2 Notice of person’s appointment to or ceasing to hold office under this Act shall be given by the Minister in the Gazette.
3 A certificate of appointment signed by the Director shall be issued to every inspector appointed and shall be evidence of his appointment under this Act
4 Any person who, immediately before the commencement of this Act, was an inspector appointed under Section 27 of the weights and Measures Act (now repealed), shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be an inspector appointed under this section.”
Section 64 provides:
“All offences under this Act may be prosecuted by an inspector.”
In my view, section 64 is permissive. Prosecution can be done by an inspector appointed under Section 54 of the Act as well as a police prosecutor. The operative word is may. Accordingly this ground of revision fails. The penalty provided for is a fine of not exceeding Ksh.20,000/= or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years. The learned SPM merely sentenced the accused to serve 3 months. That sentence appears lenient. However, taking into account the family obligations of the accused as canvassed at the hearing, I substitute the custodial sentence with a fine of Ksh.20,000/=. In default, the accused to serve the sentence of 3 months imprisonment on each count. The sentences to run concurrently. Right of Appeal within 14 days.
Dated at Bungoma this 14th day of February 2006.
N.R.O. OMBIJA
JUDGE