[2017] KEHC 9774 (KLR)
The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial court was lawful and within the prescribed legal limits for the offence of trafficking narcotic drugs. The trial court exercised its discretion appropriately, and there was no evidence that the sentence was harsh, manifestly excessive, or based on wrong...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 9774 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Shehla Sultana; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 41 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Revision of Sentence, Narcotic Offences
- 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
Shehla Sultana
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the Applicant was harsh or manifestly excessive to warrant revision.
- 2 Whether the trial court applied the correct legal principles in sentencing the Applicant for trafficking narcotic drugs.
- 3 Whether the Applicant's mitigating circumstances justify interference with the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial court was lawful and within the prescribed legal limits for the offence of trafficking narcotic drugs. The trial court exercised its discretion appropriately, and there was no evidence that the sentence was harsh, manifestly excessive, or based on wrong principles. The Applicant's mitigating circumstances, including age and health, did not outweigh the seriousness of the offence. The Applicant had not served two-thirds of her sentence to be eligible for remission, and revising the sentence at this stage would set a bad precedent. Therefore, the application for revision of sentence was dismissed as premature.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
- The Applicant shall continue serving the sentence until eligible for remission.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.41 OF 2017
SHEHLA SULTANA ............................... APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC .............................................. RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, Shehla Sultana was convicted of trafficking narcotics drugs contrary to Section 4(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act. The Applicant was found in possession of 11. 054 kilograms of heroin at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport on 28th January 2010. She was sentenced to serve 15 years imprisonment, and further, pay a fine of Kshs.33,162,000/-. The Applicant was sentenced on 10th February 2011. The Applicant has applied to this court seeking to have a revision of sentence. She states that she is old and sickly. She is contrite and remorseful for the offence that she committed. She told the court that she was experiencing hardship in life when she was persuaded to engage in drug trafficking. She pleaded with the court to exercise leniency on her and revise her sentence. Ms. Aluda for the State was not opposed to the application. She submitted that the court should exercise its discretion and commute the sentence of the Applicant to the period served.
This court has carefully considered the facts of this case. When the Applicant was sentenced by the trial court, that court was exercising judicial discretion. This court can only interfere with such sentence if it is established that the sentence was either harsh or extremely lenient as to constitute miscarriage of justice. This court can also interfere with the exercise of such sentencing discretion if it is established that the trial court applied the wrong principles of the law in sentencing the Applicant.
In the present application, it was clear to the court that the trial court sentenced the Applicant to serve a legal sentence. This court has taken note of the age of the Applicant. It has also considered her mitigating circumstances. It was apparent to this court that such mitigation does not distract from the fact that the charge that the Applicant faced and was convicted of was serious. Even if this court were to take into account the period that the Applicant was in remand custody during trial, the Applicant is yet to serve two thirds of her sentence to entitle her to benefit from remission. The Applicant’s circumstances notwithstanding, if this court were to revise her custodial sentence, it would set a bad precedent especially in light of the charge that the Applicant was convicted of.
In the premises therefore, this court is of the view that the application for revision of sentence made by the Applicant is premature. The Applicant shall continue serving the sentence until the time when she shall benefit from remission. The Application is hereby dismissed. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
L. KIMARU
JUDGE