[1942] EACA 64
The court held that the imposition of a fine must be guided by the offender's ability to pay, not merely the statutory maximum or the seriousness of the offence. The learned Magistrate failed to consider the appellant's pecuniary circumstances, resulting in a fine that was manifestly excessive and unlikely to be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1942] EACA 64
- Parties
- Appellant: Murefu Munyoki; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1942
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- fine reduced
- Judges
- Bartley J, Sheridan, (C.J. Kenya)
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Fines, Capacity to Pay, Native Registration Offences
- 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
Murefu Munyoki
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Magistrate erred in imposing a fine without considering the accused's capacity to pay.
- 2 What is the governing principle in determining the amount of a fine for criminal offences under the Native Registration Ordinance.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the imposition of a fine must be guided by the offender's ability to pay, not merely the statutory maximum or the seriousness of the offence. The learned Magistrate failed to consider the appellant's pecuniary circumstances, resulting in a fine that was manifestly excessive and unlikely to be realized. The principle that the capacity to pay is paramount in sentencing by fine was reaffirmed, and the fine was reduced to an amount that the appellant could reasonably pay, with the default imprisonment term left unchanged.
Court Disposition
fine reduced
Orders
- The fine imposed on the appellant is reduced to Sh. 21.
- The sentence of three months imprisonment with hard labour in default of payment stands.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
## APPELLATE CRIMINAL
# BEFORE SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J., AND BARTLEY, J.
REX, Respondent $\mathbf{v}_{\mathcal{N}}$
### MUREFU MUNYOKI, Appellant
Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1942
Criminal Law-Sentence of fine-First principle governing amount of fine inflicted.
The appellant on being convicted of failing to carry a registration certificate on his person contrary to section 5(2) of the Native Registration Ordinance (Cap. 127) and having admitted sixteen previous convictions including two convictions for similar offences was sentenced to pay a fine of Sh. 400 or in default three months imprisonment with hard labour.
**Held** $(16-1-42)$ .—That the necessity for consideration being given to the capacity of an accused person to pay a fine is a first principle in inflicting this mode of punishment.
#### Appellant in person.
### Spurling, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
JUDGMENT.-In imposing a fine of Sh. 400 in this case on the accused who is a native the learned Magistrate has failed to consider what is a first principle in passing a sentence of fine, namely the capacity of the accused to pay and so the possibility of the fine being realized. It is obvious that it would take the accused years to earn the amount of the fine imposed in this case. The sentence was passed under section 17 of the Native Registration Ordinance which provides: $-$
"Any person contravening any of the provisions of this Ordinance, for which no special penalty is provided, or of any rules made thereunder, shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or in default of payment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months."
From that section it is clear that the imposition of a fine of Sh. 400 is competent, but such a fine would be reserved for a particularly bad case and even in such a case the capacity of the individual to pay would be a very necessary and relevant matter for consideration. The following circular which was issued by the Courts in India and which is to be found at pages 52 and 53 of the 6th edition of Sohoni's Criminal Procedure Code (India) is so apt on the point that we incorporate it in our judgment. It reads as follows: $-$
"The attention of the Courts is directed to the very great importance of exercising great discretion in regulating the sentences of fine passed by them so as to accord with the circumstances of the persons on whom the sentences are passed. Fines are sometimes imposed which are manifestly impossible of realization, while there is reason to fear that many fines, imposed in petty cases, though realized, are paid only with difficulty. It would appear that in dealing with numerous petty cases some magistrates fall into a way of fixing the fines at particular amounts as a matter of course, without much thought as to how they will be felt by the particular individual on whom they are imposed.
It is a first principle in inflicting this mode of punishment that it is necessary to have as much regard to the pecuniary circumstances of the offender as to the character and magnitude of the offence. Fines should never, in any case, be imposed which are not likely to be realized at all, and they should never be imposed in petty cases so severe as not to be easily realizable."
We reduce the fine to Sh. 21 and allow the sentence in default to stand.