[2005] KEHC 2571 (KLR)
The court found that the coffee being transported by the appellants was raw coffee, which is expressly excluded from the definition of 'coffee' under the Coffee (Movement Control) Rules. Therefore, the requirement for a movement permit did not apply, and the appellants could not be lawfully convicted for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2571 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Samuel Muturi Kanyotu; Appellant: Isaac Gatimu Konje; Appellant: Joshua Maina Mwangi; Appellant: Geoffrey Waithaka Gichaga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 313,315,316,317 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- GG Okwengu
- Legal Topics
- Movement of Coffee, Statutory Interpretation, Sentencing Illegality
- 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
Samuel Muturi Kanyotu
Appellant
Isaac Gatimu Konje
Appellant
Joshua Maina Mwangi
Appellant
Geoffrey Waithaka Gichaga
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether transporting raw coffee berries without a movement permit constitutes an offence under the Coffee Movement Control Rules.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed exceeded the statutory maximum penalty.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the coffee being transported by the appellants was raw coffee, which is expressly excluded from the definition of 'coffee' under the Coffee (Movement Control) Rules. Therefore, the requirement for a movement permit did not apply, and the appellants could not be lawfully convicted for transporting raw coffee berries without such a permit. Furthermore, the sentences imposed by the trial magistrate exceeded the statutory maximum penalty prescribed by rule 6 of the Coffee (Movement Control) Rules, rendering the sentences illegal. The convictions and sentences were therefore quashed, and any fines paid were ordered to be refunded.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- All appeals are allowed.
- Convictions of each appellant are quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI CRIMINAL CASE NO.313 OF 2001
(An appeal from the Judgment of C. D. Nyamweya Senior Resident Magistrate, Nyeri delivered on 22nd October, 2001 in Criminal Case No.4227 of 2000)
SAMUEL MUTURI KANYOTU……………………..………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………………………………….……..RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL CASE NO.315 OF 2001
ISAAC GATIMU KONJE………….….………………………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………..…….………………………………..RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL CASE NO.316 OF 2002
JOSHUA MAINA MWANGI…………………………………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………………..…………………….RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL CASE NO.317 OF 2001
(An appeal from the Judgment of C. D. Nyamweya Senior Resident Magistrate, Nyeri
delivered on 22nd October, 2001 in Criminal Case No.4227 of 2000)
GEOFFREY WAITHAKA GICHAGA………………..…..………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………………….……..………………..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
(CONSOLIDATED)
Samuel Muturi Kanyotu (Appellant in Hc.Cr. Appeal No.313 of 2001), Isaac Gatimu Konje (Appellant in Hc.Cr. Appeal No.315 of 2001) Joshua Maina Mwangi (Appellant in Hc.Cr. Appeal No.316 of 2001) and Geoffrey Waithaka Gichaga (Appellant in Hc.Cr. Appeal No.317 of 2001) were all jointly tried and convicted by the Senior Resident Magistrate Nyeri of two counts. The first being transporting coffee without a movement permit contrary to rule 3(1) as read with rule 6 of the Coffee Movement Rules Cap 33 Laws of Kenya, and the second count being one of Transporting Coffee After Hours Contrary to rule 5 as read with rule 6 of the Coffee Movement Rules, Cap 333 Laws of Kenya. They were each sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs.15,000/- in default to serve 6 months imprisonment on each count. Being aggrieved, they have each separately appealed against conviction and sentences which appeals have been consolidated for purposes of hearing.
Mr Macharia who appeared for all the appellants has argued that the trial Magistrate erred in convicting the appellants as the coffee they were alleged to be transporting was “raw coffee berries” which is not included in the definition of “coffee” as defined in the Coffee Movement Control Rules, secondly the appellants did not require a movement permit as they were transporting their own coffee collected from farmers for which time was not of essence. It was further submitted that the sentence was illegal and unlawful as it was contrary to rule 6 of the Coffee Movement Rules. The State Counsel has indicated that she is conceding the appeal.
It is apparent that the coffee which was allegedly being transported was raw coffee. This was clear from page 3 of the Record of appeal wherein the Prosecutor states that: “The coffee is raw coffee. The coffee may go bad if kept for a long period before being processed.” Under rule 2 of the Coffee (Movement Control) Rules “Coffee” means “clean coffee, parchment coffee and buni, but not the coffee fruit or cherry which has not been dried, roasted berries or ground berries.” It is evident therefore that what the appellants were alleged to be having was excluded from the rules and did not therefore require a movement permit. The trial Magistrate therefore erred in convicting the appellants.
As regards the sentence the same was clearly illegal as it was way above the maximum penalty of Kshs.2,000/- and the default term of 2 months provided under rule 6 of the Coffee (Movement Control) Rules.
I do therefore allow all the respective appeals, quash the conviction of each appellant and set aside the sentences imposed. The fines if paid shall be refunded to each appellant.
Dated, signed and delivered this 26th day of May 2005.
H. M. OKWENGU
JUDGE