[2017] KEHC 1510 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discretion, considered all relevant mitigation factors including the appellant's status as a first offender and family circumstances, and imposed a sentence that was neither excessive nor based on any error of law or fact. The seriousness of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1510 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Wilson Kirui; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 1 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Wildlife Offences, Sentencing Principles, Possession of Ivory
- 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
Wilson Kirui
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of five years imprisonment for possession of wildlife trophies was lawful and appropriate.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred in considering or failing to consider relevant mitigation factors in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discretion, considered all relevant mitigation factors including the appellant's status as a first offender and family circumstances, and imposed a sentence that was neither excessive nor based on any error of law or fact. The seriousness of the offence, which threatens national heritage and is prevalent in Narok County, justified the five-year imprisonment. The appellate court has no basis to interfere with the sentence as none of the grounds for appellate intervention were established. The appeal was therefore dismissed in its entirety and the sentence confirmed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.
- The sentence of five years imprisonment is confirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1 OF 2017
[[From the original conviction and sentence dated 6/5/2015in
Criminal Case No. 970/2014 in the Senior Principal
Magistrate’s court at Narok, R. v. Wilson Kirui]
WILSON KIRUI........................................APPELLANT
- VERSUS -
REPUBLIC...........................................RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
1. The appellant has appealed against his sentence of 5 years imprisonment in respect of being found in possession of wildlife trophies namely four pieces of ivory contrary to section 95 as read with section 92 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act of 2013, which was recorded against him by the Court of Senior Principal Magistrate at Narok on 6th May, 2015.
2. I have reassessed the evidence upon which the appellant is convicted and found that he was convicted on ample evidence. The appellant has raised 4 grounds in his petition to this court as mitigation factors. The appellant has complained in ground one that he did not benefit from the remission and pardon. My understanding is that the appellant in this ground is complaining that other prisoners were granted amnesty and he himself was not a beneficiary. This is clear from his ground one of his grounds of appeal in which he urges the court to be lenient. The issue of remission is a matter that is not within the jurisdiction of this court and for this reason I find that this ground is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
3. In ground 2, the appellant has stated that he was remorseful. This ground of appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed. In ground three, the appellant has stated that he is the bread winner in his family and he has also said in ground four that he was first offender and finally he has stated that he acquired enough knowledge which is important to this nation.
4. I find that the trial court took into account that he was first offender and that he was single parent with children. These were the mitigations put forward by the appellant. Furthermore, the trial court found that the appellant was convicted of a serious offence because it threatened our heritage and was prevalent in Narok County and proceeded to sentence the appellant to five years imprisonment.
5. In sentencing the appellant the trial court took into account the principles applicable to sentencing an accused person in terms of section 28 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63) of Laws of Kenya. Sentencing is a matter for the discretion of a trial court and according to Wanjema v. R. (1973) EA 493, an appeal court may only interfere with the discretion of the trial court if the following factors are shown to exist. First, where the trial court is shown to have overlooked some material factor. Second, where the trial court is shown to have taken into to account some immaterial factors and third, where the trial court is shown to have acted on a wrong principle and four, where the trial court has shown to have imposed a sentence that is manifestly excessive.
6. I find that the trial court did not commit any errors of fact or law in sentencing the appellant to five years imprisonment. It therefore follows that this court is not entitled to interfere with sentence of five years. In the circumstances, the sentence of five years imprisonment is confirmed. The appellant’s appeal is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
Judgement delivered in open court this 27th day of February, 2017.
In the presence of the Appellant and Mr. Mukofu for DPP.
J. M. Bwonwonga
Judge
27/2/2017