Criminal Revision 1 of 2011

Help

Advanced Search mode is suitable for finding a particular case when you have details that describe the case at hand e.g. (names of parties, case number, case year etc).
To find a case according to its meta data (names of parties, case number, and date of delivery, case year etc) one need not fill in all the fields. You may use any one or more search criteria; search using whatever information you have..

Download: PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML Show Metadata

KOYET LEMUSINI & 4 Others v REPUBLIC [2011] eKLR

Case Metadata
Case Number:	Criminal Revision 1 of 2011
Parties:	KOYET LEMUSINI & 4 Others v REPUBLIC
Date Delivered:	22 Feb 2011
Case Class:	Criminal
Court:	High Court at Mombasa
Case Action:	Ruling
Judge(s):	Maureen Akinyi Odero
Citation:	KOYET LEMUSINI & 4 Others v REPUBLIC [2011] eKLR
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 MOMBASA

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1 OF 2011

KOYET LEMUSINI

LEMANYARA JACOBO

TATOYA KILASI ……………………. APPLICANTS

SENDEU SAMBO OLJONI

ROPILI KESURUMO

-VERSUS-

REPUBLIC …………………………….……………. RESPONDENT

RULING

By their letter dated 4^th January 2011 MESSRS GUNGA MWINGA & COMPANY ADVOCATES have sought a revision of the decision of the learned District Magistrate II in DMCC 783/2010. In that case the five accused persons namely:

(1) KOYET LEMUSINI

(2) LEMANYARA JACOBO

(3) TAYOTA KILASI

(4) SENDEU SAMBO OLJONI

(5) ROPILI KESURUMO

faced four counts. They entered a plea of guilty to Count Nos. 2 & 4 which read as follows:

COUNT NO. 2

“ENTERING A NATIONAL PARK CONTRARY TO SECTION 13(a) OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT CAP 376 LAWS OF KENYA”

COUNT NO. 4

“ENTERING A NATIONAL PARK ELSEWHERE THAN A PLACE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR AS AN ENTRANCE CONTRARY TO REGULATION 5(a) as read with REGULATION 9 OF THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT CAP 376 LAWS OF KENYA”

The learned trial magistrate recorded the pleas of guilty and proceeded to sentence each of the five accused persons as follows:

§ Count No. 2 – A fine of Kshs.30,000/- or serve 3 years in jail

§ Count No. 4 – A fine of Kshs.30,000/- or serve 3 years jail.

In exercise of the powers of review granted to the High Court, I have perused the record of the lower court proceedings and I note certain glaring anomalies. On 22^nd December 2010 the charges were read out to the accuseds and they pleaded guilty to Count No. 2 and 4. The facts were not read out to the accused as is required by law. Instead the prosecutor merely stated:

“May the particulars be as per the charge sheet on count 2 and 4. May the accuseds be treated as first offenders”

Firstly to declare facts to be ‘as per charge sheet’ does not fulfil the legal requirement that the facts be read out and explained to the accuseds. The record indicates the presence of a Masai interpreter at the time of plea. There is no indication that the facts were translated into Masai for the benefit of the accuseds. Secondly none of the accuseds indicated whether or not they accepted those facts as true. Thirdly the learned trial magistrate did not record a conviction against any of the accuseds as is required by S. 207(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides:

“207(2) If the accused person admits the truth of the charge his admission shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him and the court shall convict him and pass sentence upon ….”

The terms of S. 207(2) are mandatory that upon a plea of guilty the court shall render a conviction against the accused person. This was not done in this case. The trial magistrate merely proceeded to impose sentence. A sentence imposed in the absence of a conviction is a nullity. Furthermore the court did not accord each accused the opportunity to mitigate as required by law. All the record indicates is:

“Mitigation – none”

This is improper. The magistrate ought to have called upon each accused to make a statement in mitigation before imposing her sentence. There is no indication from the record that this procedure was followed. Finally I find that the pleas of the five accused in respect to Count No. 2 and 4 were not taken in accordance with law and/or procedure. This renders the sentences imposed in respect of those two counts null and void and I hereby quash the purported convictions of the 5 accused on Count Nos. 2 and 4 ONLY. The subsequent sentences imposed with respect to Count No. 2 and Count No. 4 ONLY are hereby set aside. For the avoidance of doubt orders of the trial court with respect to Count Nos. 1 and 3 are not affected by this revision and therefore remain valid and enforceable.

Dated and Delivered at Mombasa this 22^nd day of February 2011.

M. ODERO

JUDGE

Download PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML

Please enter advanced search options

Case Content:		Subject:
Case Number:		Parties:
Judge:		Court:
	Delivery Date Range:
From:		To:

Except for some material which is expressly stated to be under a specified Creative Commons license, the contents of this website are in the public domain and free from any copyright restrictions

Case Search

Criminal Revision 1 of 2011

Case Metadata

Please enter advanced search options