[2022] KEHC 15317 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed on the applicant was within the statutory minimum and appropriate given the gravity of the offence, which involved dealing in elephant tusks, a serious threat to endangered species. The applicant failed to provide credible evidence of illness or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 15317 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Christopher Kimatu Waita; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E003 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Reduction
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- SN Mutuku
- Legal Topics
- Wildlife Offences, Sentencing Principles, Plea of Guilty, Mitigation, Endangered Species, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Christopher Kimatu Waita
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Reduction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 10 years imprisonment for dealing in wildlife trophy of an endangered species was excessive and should be reduced.
- 2 Whether the applicant's age and alleged illness constitute sufficient grounds for reduction of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed on the applicant was within the statutory minimum and appropriate given the gravity of the offence, which involved dealing in elephant tusks, a serious threat to endangered species. The applicant failed to provide credible evidence of illness or other exceptional circumstances to justify reduction of sentence. The court emphasized the need for deterrent sentences in wildlife trophy offences to protect endangered species. The application for sentence reduction was therefore dismissed for lack of merit, and the applicant was ordered to continue serving the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for reduction of sentence is dismissed.
- The applicant shall continue serving the sentence passed by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Waita v Republic (Criminal Revision E003 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 15317 (KLR) (11 October 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 15317 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kajiado
Criminal Revision E003 of 2021
SN Mutuku, J
October 11, 2022
Between
Christopher Kamatu Waita
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
Introduction 1. Christopher Kimatu Waita, the Applicant, was arrested and charged with the offence of dealing in wildlife trophy of an endangered species without a permit or other lawful exemption contrary to section 92 (2) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013.
2. He pleaded guilty to the charge to the charge on 16th November, 2020. The facts of the case were presented to court on 26th November, 2020. The facts show that on 13th November, 2020 at around 11. 00am, Kenya Wildlife Services Officers from Kajiado Station led by Officers Abdi and Yegon received a tip off about suspected persons at Namanga in possession of elephant tusks and transporting the same in sacks to unknown place within Namanga town. They were informed that the suspects were walking on foot along Amboseli/Namanga Road each carrying tusks in sacks.
3. The officers laid an ambush and arrested the suspects at around2. 00pm and recovered 3 pieces of elephant tusks weighing approximately 7 kilogrammes. The tusks were certified as elephant tusks and were produced as exhibits together with an inventory prepared by the officers.
4. The accused admitted facts as correct. He was found guilty on his own plea of guilty and convicted. He was sentenced to serve 10 years imprisonment.
Chamber Summons 5. Through a Chamber Summons filed on 17th March, 2022, the Applicant moved this court seeking reduction of sentence on grounds of age and serious illness. His grounds in support of the Chamber Summons are contained in the Affidavit sworn by the Applicant. The grounds are mixed up, badly drafted and difficult to understand. With a lot of difficulty, I understand the Applicant to be seeking reduction of sentence due to age and illness. The Affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons does not state what age the Applicant is nor does it show what ailment he is suffering from, if any.
6. He states that he is deeply remorseful and repentant and that he regrets his actions; that he has reformed and capable of integrating with society as a better person.
7. I have noted that the Applicant in his mitigation to the trial court did not show remorse. He told the court that he is the one who informed the KWS officers about the elephant tusks and they told him that he will be a prosecution witness but they turned against him.
8. I have noted that the Applicant was 41 years at the time of sentence. There is no indication that the Applicant suffers from any ailment.
9. Section 92 (2) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act provides that:A person who, without permit or exemption issued under this Act, deals in a wildlife trophy, of any critically endangered or endangered species as specified in the Sixth Schedule or listed under Cites Appendix I, commits an offence and shall be liable upon conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than seven years.
10. The Applicant was sentenced to serve 10 years imprisonment. The offence is a serious one given that this country’s elephant population is under threat of poaching. These animals are an endangered species. They are targeted because of the tusks, a lucrative prohibited item. An offence of this nature should not be taken lightly. Sentences for this nature of crime should be deterrent, if only to ensure that the elephants are safe from get-rich-quickly persons who have no qualms from dealing in trophies of this nature.
11. I have considered this matter. Given the sentence provided under Section 92(2) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, and given the sentence meted to the Applicant, it is my considered view that it is not excessive. The applicant has not shown any reasons why this court should interfere with the sentence meted out by the trial court. I find this Application lacking in merit. I hereby dismiss the same and order that the Applicant continues serving the sentence passed by the trial court.
12. Orders shall issue accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 11TH OCTOBER, 2022. S. N. MUTUKUJUDGE