[2016] KEHC 8458 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 8458 (KLR)

The court found that the trial magistrate's failure to pass sentence on counts 1 and 2 after convicting the applicant was both an irregularity and an illegality. Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court determined it was necessary to impose...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 8458 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: William Arianda Andere; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 445 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentencing Omission
Outcome
Sentences imposed for counts 1 and 2; fines or imprisonment in default; sentences to run consecutively.
Legal Topics
Sentencing Irregularity, Revisionary Jurisdiction, Making Document Without Authority, Uttering False Document, Obtaining by False Pretences
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Irregularity Revisionary Jurisdiction Making Document Without Authority Uttering False Document Obtaining by False Pretences

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Arianda Andere

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentencing Omission

  1. 1 Whether the omission by the trial magistrate to pass sentence on counts 1 and 2 constituted an irregularity or illegality requiring correction.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sentence for counts 1 (making a document without authority) and 2 (uttering a false document) under the Penal Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial magistrate's failure to pass sentence on counts 1 and 2 after convicting the applicant was both an irregularity and an illegality. Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court determined it was necessary to impose appropriate sentences for those counts. Considering the magistrate had imposed fines for counts 3 to 5, the High Court deemed it fair and consistent to impose similar sentences for counts 1 and 2. Accordingly, the applicant was ordered to pay a fine of KES 200,000 for count 1 (making a document without authority) or serve 1 year imprisonment in default, and a fine of KES 50,000...

Court Disposition

Sentences imposed for counts 1 and 2; fines or imprisonment in default; sentences to run consecutively.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay a fine of KES 200,000 for count 1 or serve 1 year imprisonment in default.
  • Applicant to pay a fine of KES 50,000 for count 2 or serve 6 months imprisonment in default.