[2014] KEHC 4658 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 4658 (KLR)

The court found that the sentence imposed on the applicants—Ksh. 30,000 fine or five months imprisonment in default—was within the statutory limits set by Section 34(a) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act 2010, which prescribes a maximum fine of Ksh. 50,000 or imprisonment for up to nine months. There was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 4658 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Mark Nderitu; Applicant: Jeruto Rashia
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 26 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
GO Shikwe
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Alcohol Control Offences
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Alcohol Control Offences

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Respondent

Mark Nderitu

Applicant

Jeruto Rashia

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for selling liquor at unauthorized hours was illegal or excessive under Section 34(a) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act.
  2. 2 Whether there is any basis for the High Court to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sentence imposed on the applicants—Ksh. 30,000 fine or five months imprisonment in default—was within the statutory limits set by Section 34(a) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act 2010, which prescribes a maximum fine of Ksh. 50,000 or imprisonment for up to nine months. There was no illegality or impropriety in the sentence, and one applicant had already paid the fine and been released. The application for revision lacked merit as there was no basis for the High Court to interfere with a lawful sentence imposed by the trial court.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • No interference with the sentence imposed by the trial court.