[2014] KEHC 4576 (KLR)
The court found that the sentences imposed on the applicant for each count were within the statutory limits set by Section 53(2) and Section 54(2) of the relevant Act. The fines and default imprisonment terms did not exceed the maximum penalties prescribed by law. The court determined that the sentences were fair...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4576 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sharifu Mohamed Sharifu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 29 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- GO Shikwe
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Immigration Offences, Forgery, Use of False Documents
- 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
Sharifu Mohamed Sharifu
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the applicant were harsh or excessive under the relevant statutory provisions.
- 2 Whether there was any legal basis to interfere with the sentences imposed by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentences imposed on the applicant for each count were within the statutory limits set by Section 53(2) and Section 54(2) of the relevant Act. The fines and default imprisonment terms did not exceed the maximum penalties prescribed by law. The court determined that the sentences were fair and proportionate to the offences committed, and there was no evidence of harshness or excessiveness that would warrant interference. Consequently, the application for revision lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is disallowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 29 OF 2014
SHARIFU MOHAMED SHARIFU…......…............................….. APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……….……...................................................…RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant SHARIFU MOHAMED SHARIFU pleaded guilty to five (5) Counts. The first one;
Being unlawfully present in Kenya.
Unlawfully making a false document.
Forging an endorsement
Knowingly using a travel document.
Knowingly, possessing a travel document.
On the 1st Count he was fined Ksh. 100,000/= in default one(1) year imprisonment.
On the second Count he was fined Ksh. 300,000/= in default eighteen months(18) Imprisonment.
3rd Count fined Ksh. 300,000/= in default eighteen (18) months Imprisonment.
4th Count fined Ksh. 300,000/= in default eighteen (18) months Imprisonment.
5th Count fined Ksh. 300,000/= in default eighteen (18) months Imprisonment.
It is the contention by Counsel for the applicant that the Sentence was harsh and excessive.
Section 53(2) of the Act provides for a fine not exceeding Ksh. 500,000/= or to Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three (3) years or both. The applicant was fined Ksh. 100,000/= in default one (1) year imprisonment which was fair in the circumstances of the case.
Section 54(2) of the Act provides for a fine not exceeding five(5) million shillings or Imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years. The applicant was fined Ksh. 300,000/= in default eighteen (18) months Imprisonment. This was a fair Sentence. The same applies to Counts 3, 4 and 5 where the applicant was fined Ksh. 300,000/= in default eighteen (18) months Imprisonment whereas the Act provides for a fine not exceeding Ksh. 5 million in default five (5) years.
The Sentences were not harsh or excessive. I find no reason to interfere.
The application has no merit and its disallowed.
Ruling delivered dated and signed this 12th day of June, 2014.
…...................
M. MUYA
JUDGE
12TH JUNE, 2014
In the presence of:-
Court clerk Mr. Musundi
Counsel for the applicant absent