[2018] KEHC 478 (KLR)
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, both the conviction and sentence imposed by the Resident Magistrate are...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 478 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Kibarisho Chepukel
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 27 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Order on Revision
- Outcome
- Conviction and sentence quashed for want of jurisdiction.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Magistrates, Alcoholic Drinks Control Offences, Plea of Guilty, Community Service 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
Republic
Applicant
Kibarisho Chepukel
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 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, both the conviction and sentence imposed by the Resident Magistrate are null and void and must be quashed. Any fine paid pursuant to the void order must be refunded.
Court Disposition
Conviction and sentence quashed for want of jurisdiction.
Orders
- Both the conviction and sentence are quashed.
- If fine was paid, it should be refunded.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 27 OF 2018
REPUBLIC......................................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
KIBARISHO CHEPUKEL........................RESPONDENT
(Being Revision of the Order of the Resident Magistrate dated 16th January, 2018 in the Chief Magistrate Court at Narok, in Criminal Case No. 52 of 2018, Republic V. Kibarisho Chepukel).
ORDER ON REVISION
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 27 OF 2018
REPUBLIC.............................................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
KIBARISHO CHEPUKEL...............................RESPONDENT
(Being Revision of the Order of the Resident Magistrate dated 16th January, 2018 in the Chief Magistrate Court at Narok, in Criminal Case No. 52 of 2018, Republic V. Kibarisho Chepukel).
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 by placing him on a community service (C.S.O.) for one day at a place to be designated by the probation officer.
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 fine was paid, it should be refunded.
7. Orders accordingly.
Order on revision dated this 30th day of November, 2018
J.M. BWONWONGA
JUDGE
30/11/2018
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 by placing him on a community service (C.S.O.) for one day at a place to be designated by the probation officer.
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 fine was paid, it should be refunded.
7. Orders accordingly.
Order on revision dated this 30th day of November, 2018
J.M. BWONWONGA
JUDGE
30/11/2018