[2025] KEMC 28 (KLR)
The court found that the second count was based on a non-existent or incorrect provision of law and, therefore, could not sustain a conviction or sentence. The accused was discharged on this count under section 35(1) of the Penal Code. For the remaining counts, the court considered the accused's status as a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEMC 28 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Job Mwangi
- Court
- Magistrate's Court
- Court Station
- Nakuru Law Courts
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Traffic Case E240 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Traffic Case / Ruling on Conviction and Sentencing After Guilty Plea
- Outcome
- Accused convicted on counts 1 and 4, discharged on counts 2 and 3; sentenced to fines with default custodial terms.
- Judges
- PA Ndege
- Legal Topics
- Traffic Offences, Sentencing Principles, Plea of Guilty
- 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
Job Mwangi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Traffic Case / Ruling on Conviction and Sentencing After Guilty Plea
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused should be convicted and sentenced on all four counts as charged.
- 2 Whether the second count is based on a valid provision of law and can sustain a conviction.
- 3 What is the appropriate sentence for a first-time offender convicted of the relevant traffic offences.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the second count was based on a non-existent or incorrect provision of law and, therefore, could not sustain a conviction or sentence. The accused was discharged on this count under section 35(1) of the Penal Code. For the remaining counts, the court considered the accused's status as a first-time offender and the applicable penalty provisions under the Traffic Act and the Traffic (Minor Offences) Rules, 2016. The court held that first-time offenders should not receive the maximum penalty unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were absent in this case. Accordingly, the accused was sentenced to a fine of Kshs. 1,500 for counts 1 and 4, with a default custodial...
Court Disposition
Accused convicted on counts 1 and 4, discharged on counts 2 and 3; sentenced to fines with default custodial terms.
Orders
- Accused to pay a fine of Kshs. 1,500 on count 1, in default to serve 8 days imprisonment.
- Accused to pay a fine of Kshs. 1,500 on count 4, in default to serve 8 days imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Republic v Mwangi (Traffic Case E240 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 28 (KLR) (11 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEMC 28 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Nakuru Law Courts
Traffic Case E240 of 2025
PA Ndege, SPM
February 11, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Job Mwangi
Accused
Ruling
1. The accused person herein, Job Mwangi, has been convicted upon own plea of guilty of the offences of Riding a Motor-cycle on a Public Road without a Driving License contrary to section 30(1) of the Traffic Act Cap 403 Laws of Kenya, punishable by Section 41 of the said Act; Failing to Display Certificate of Insurance contrary to Section 9(1) of the Insurance Act 405 Laws of Kenya; Riding a Motor Cycle Without a Helmet Contrary to Section 103B (1) as read with section 103B(7) of the Traffic Act, as Amended in 2012, Cap 403 Law of Kenya; and Riding a Motorcycle Without Identification Plate Affixed contrary to Section 12(1) of the Traffic Act Cap 403 Laws of Kenya punishable by Section 41 of the said Act, in the 3 counts herein.
2. He admitted that on 07/02/2025 at about 00. 10pm along Nakuru-Mailisita road at Maili Sita area in Nakuru North sub-County within Nakuru County, being the rider of a motorcycle Reg. No. KMFX 596E make Sonlink, he rode the said motorcycle on a public road without a driving license, without displaying a certificate of insurance against third party risks, without a helmet and without having affixed an identification plate of the said motorcycle.
3. He is a first-time offender and has pleaded for forgiveness. I have looked at the charges and the penalty provisions. First, I do find that the charge in the second count is based on a none-existent or wrong provision of the law and to proceed to sentence the accused on it, shall obviously lead to a miscarriage of justice. I do hereby discharge the accused of the offence in the second count pursuant to the provisions of section 35(1) of the Penal Code as that is the only option available to me at this stage.
4. As for the offences or charges in counts 1 and 4, I find the penalty provisions therein to read as follows:41. Penalties under this PartAny person who contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Part shall be guilty of an offence and liable, where no penalty is specifically provided, on first conviction to a fine not exceeding ten thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, and on each subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.
5. The accused being a first-time offender, I do hereby sentence him to a fine of Kshs. 1,500/= in default to served 14 days imprisonment in the first count. As for the 3rd count, I find that the same is punishable under the Traffic Act Minor Offences) Rules, 2016, which provides for a maximum of Kshs. 1,000/=. The accused being a first-time offender, should not be subjected to the maximum penalty no matter how low the sentence might appear, as was held in the case of Richard Ombati Kerage Vrs Republic [2008] eKLR in which the court held as follows:As regards the appeal against sentence, the appellant was a first offender and was a fairly young man although his age could not be verified. He only said that he was eighteen years’ old. A trial court should not sentence a first offender to the maximum sentence provided by the law unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify the same.
6. I do not find any exceptional circumstances herein that might make me depart from the general rule and I thus do hereby exercise my discretion and sentence the accused as follows:a.Counts 1 & 4: Kshs. 1,500/- in default to serve 8 days imprisonment in each count.b.Counts 2 & 3: Discharged under section 35(1) of the Penal Code.Sentences to run consecutively as required and R/A 14 days explained.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU IN OPEN COURT THIS 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2025ALOYCE-PETER-NDEGESENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATEIn the presence of;Court interpreter: JanetProsecution Counsel: MachariaAccused:Present