[2020] KEHC 1054 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 1054 (KLR)

The court found that the trial magistrate erred by sentencing the applicants on two counts when the amended charge sheet contained only one count. The sentence on the non-existent second count was set aside. However, the court held that the sentence of a fine of Kshs. 100,000 in default 12 months' imprisonment on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 1054 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Titus Mosingi Mowaiwa; Applicant: Erick Mosingi; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 220 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Outcome
Sentence on count two set aside; conviction and sentence on count one affirmed; application for further review declined.
Judges
REA Ougo
Legal Topics
Wildlife Offences, Sentencing Review, Possession of Wildlife Trophies
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Wildlife Offences Sentencing Review Possession of Wildlife Trophies

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Titus Mosingi Mowaiwa

Applicant

Erick Mosingi

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review

  1. 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred by convicting and sentencing the applicants on two counts when only one count existed.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act.
  3. 3 Whether the court should review the sentence in light of the applicants' personal circumstances and the probation report.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial magistrate erred by sentencing the applicants on two counts when the amended charge sheet contained only one count. The sentence on the non-existent second count was set aside. However, the court held that the sentence of a fine of Kshs. 100,000 in default 12 months' imprisonment on the valid count was lawful and, in fact, lenient compared to the statutory minimum penalty under Section 92 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, which prescribes a fine of not less than twenty million shillings or life imprisonment. The court declined to review the sentence further, affirming the conviction and sentence on the single valid count, and set aside the...

Court Disposition

Sentence on count two set aside; conviction and sentence on count one affirmed; application for further review declined.

Orders

  • The fine and imprisonment imposed for count two are set aside.
  • The order that sentences run consecutively is set aside.