Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Criminal Appeal 26 of 2018|
|Parties:||Bigirimana Eric & Nimpagaritse Olivier v Republic|
|Date Delivered:||04 Dec 2018|
|Court:||High Court at Kitui|
|Judge(s):||Lilian Nabwire Mutende|
|Citation:||Bigirimana Eric & another v Republic  eKLR|
|Case History:||(Being an Appeal from Original Conviction and Sentence in Mutomo Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case NO. 152 of 2018 by Hon Z.J. Nyakundi (SPM) on 5/4/2018).|
|History Docket No:||Criminal Case NO. 152 of 2018|
|History Magistrate:||Hon Z.J. Nyakundi - SPM|
|Disclaimer:||The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information|
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITUI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2018
1. BIGIRIMANA ERIC)
2. NIMPAGARITSE OLIVIER ).............APPELLANTS
(Being an Appeal from Original Conviction and Sentence in Mutomo Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case NO. 152 of 2018 by Hon Z.J. Nyakundi (SPM) on 5/4/2018).
J U D G M E N T
1. Bigirimana Eric (1st appellant) and Nimpagaritse Olivier (2nd Appellant) were jointly charged with three counts thus:-
Count 1 - Being unlawfully present in Kenya contrary to section 53(1) (J) (2) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act No. 12 of 2011.
Count 2 - Not being Kenyan citizens, engaging in employment without being authorized by work permit contrary to section 53(1) (m) (2) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act No. 12 of 2011.
Count 3 – Failure to register as Foreign National contrary to Section 56(2) as read with Section 56(3) of the Kenyan Citizenship and Immigration Act 2011 and Regulations 46 of thereto.
2. They admitted the charges and were sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 30,000/= or in default to serve one (1) year imprisonment on each count. Sentences were to run consecutively.
3. Aggrieved, they now mitigate on sentence on the grounds that;-
4. At the hearing they prayed to be repatriated to their country.
5. The State through learned State Counsel, Mr. Mamba opposed the appeal. He urged that the sentence meted out was lenient.
6. I have considered rival submissions of both the Appellants and the Respondent (State). I also do note that a sentence passed by the Lower Court can only be interfered by the Appellate Court if it is illegal or unlawful (see Ogolla s/o Owour versus Republic  EACA 270).
7. I have taken into consideration circumstances in which the offence was committed and the fact that the appellants have now served seven (7) months imprisonment. I therefore set aside the sentence meted out and reduce it to the term already served. Both appellants will be repatriated to Burundi, their country of origin.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kitui this 4th day of December, 2018.
L. N. MUTENDE