[2018] KEHC 325 (KLR)
The court found that the Resident Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine the offence under Section 33 (i) (ii) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act because the Act defines 'magistrate' as one above the rank of Resident Magistrate. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed were null and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 325 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Ann Meiyu Taga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 59 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Order on Revision
- Outcome
- conviction and sentence quashed
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Magistrates, Alcoholic Drinks Control, Criminal Sentencing
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Ann Meiyu Taga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Order on Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a Resident Magistrate has jurisdiction under the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act to hear and determine offences under Section 33 (i) (ii).
- 2 Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by a Resident Magistrate in such circumstances are valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Resident Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine the offence under Section 33 (i) (ii) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act because the Act defines 'magistrate' as one above the rank of Resident Magistrate. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed were null and void. The court quashed both the conviction and sentence and ordered a refund of any fine paid.
Court Disposition
conviction and sentence quashed
Orders
- Both the conviction and sentence are quashed.
- If a fine was paid, it should be refunded.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAROK
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 59 OF 2018
REPUBLIC......................................................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
ANN MEIYU TAGA.....................................................RESPONDENT
(Being Revision of the Order of the Resident Magistrate dated 15th January, 2018 in the
Chief Magistrate Court at Narok, in Criminal Case No. 6 of 2018, Republic V. Ann Meiyu Taga).
ORDER ON REVISION
1. This matter has been reported by the Chief Magistrate (Hon. W.A. Juma) for orders in respect of the order of the learned Resident Magistrate (Hon. A.N. Sisenda) in which she convicted the respondent on his own plea of guilty for being drunk and disorderly contrary to Section 33 (i) (ii) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act No. 4 of 2010. She then proceeded to sentence the respondent to a fine of Shs.15,000/= in default to serve three (3) months imprisonment.
2. In her report to this court the Chief Magistrate has indicated that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine this matter. In this regard, the definition of “magistrate” in the interpretation section of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act in section 2 means “A magistrate who is above the rank of the Resident Magistrate.”
3. It therefore follows that Hon. Sisenda who holds the rank of Resident Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to entertain and determine this matter.
4. It also follows that the order made by the learned resident magistrate is null and void.
5. In the circumstances both the conviction and sentence are hereby quashed.
6. If a fine was paid, it should be refunded.
7. Orders accordingly.
Order on revision dated this 7th day of December, 2018
J.M. BWONWONGA
JUDGE
7/12/2018