[2024] KEHC 1022 (KLR)
The High Court found that the applicants were convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 102(1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, yet the facts presented in court related to a different offence involving having cattle in a national park, which falls under Section 102(2) and (3) of the Act....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 1022 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Salone Tajiri; Applicant: Katoo Miriati; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Voi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E011 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- conviction quashed and sentence set aside
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Wildlife Offences, Defective Charge Sheet, Revision Jurisdiction, Sentencing Errors
- 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
Salone Tajiri
Applicant
Katoo Miriati
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants were convicted and sentenced for an offence different from that disclosed by the facts presented in court.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred by failing to amend the charge sheet or enter a plea of not guilty when the facts did not support the charge.
- 3 Whether the conviction and sentence should be quashed under the court's revisionary powers.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the applicants were convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 102(1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, yet the facts presented in court related to a different offence involving having cattle in a national park, which falls under Section 102(2) and (3) of the Act. This variance between the charge and the facts violated the principles set out in Adan v Republic (1973) EA 445, which require the trial court to either amend the charge or enter a plea of not guilty when the facts do not support the charge. The trial court's failure to do so resulted in the applicants being convicted for an offence they were not properly charged with....
Court Disposition
conviction quashed and sentence set aside
Orders
- The convictions of the two applicants are quashed.
- The sentence imposed is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Tajiri & another v Republic (Criminal Revision E011 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 1022 (KLR) (8 February 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 1022 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Voi
Criminal Revision E011 of 2024
GMA Dulu, J
February 8, 2024
Between
Salone Tajiri
1st Applicant
Katoo Miriati
2nd Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Before me is a request for revision of the Magistrate’s court conviction and sentence filed by counsel John Bwire & Associates Advocates in respect of the two applicants herein, who were charged with two others in the Magistrate’s court.
2. The request was filed with a supporting affidavit sworn by Salone Tajiri, one of the applicants on 25th January 2024, in which it was deponed that he was charged with entering or residing in a national park or reserve otherwise than under licence or permit contrary to Section 102(i)(h) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act.
3. It was also deponed that the facts as read to the court by the Prosecutor on 20th December 2023 were however, that he and the 2nd applicant were found sleeping besides 500 cows, and that as such they should have been charged under Section 102(2) read with Section 102(3) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013, and not under Section 102(1) of the Act.
4. The applicants counsel Mr. Bwire made brief submissions in support of the request for revision of the trial court’s orders.
5. On his part, the learned Prosecuting Counsel Mr. Sirima submitted that though the charge was brought under Section 102(1)(a) of the Act, the facts read related to a different section and offence.
6. According to Prosecuting Counsel therefore, the sentence herein of Kshs. 200,000/= fine in default 2 years imprisonment should not have been imposed.
7. In response to these submissions of the Prosecuting Counsel, learned counsel for the applicants Mr. Bwire submitted that the applicants had already served two (2) months in custody and should thus be discharged and acquitted.
8. Having considered the submissions and perused the trial court record, I note that the applicants were charged with others with illegal entry into a national park, but the facts read by the Prosecutor in court related to having cattle in the park, which was a different offence under the Act, and was at variance with the description or facts in the charge sheet.
9. Under the principles stated in the case of Adan v Republic (1973) EA 445, the trial court should in those circumstances, not have convicted and sentenced them but should have asked for amendments of the charge or entered a plea of not guilty, as otherwise the applicants would end up being convicted for an offence they were not charged with as happened herein, which is wrong.
10. I thus exercise this court’s revision powers, and quash the convictions of the two applicants, and set aside the sentence imposed herein. The applicants will be released from custody unless otherwise lawfully held.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 AT VOI IN OPEN COURT.GEORGE DULU...............................JUDGEI certify that this is a true copy of the originalSignedDEUPUTY REGISTRARIn the presence of:-Alfred/Trizah – Court AssistantsMr. Bwire for the applicants748471558Mr. Sirima for State