Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Criminal Appeal 270 of 1989 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | Oremo v Republic |
| Date Delivered: | 16 Feb 1990 |
| Case Class: | Criminal |
| Court: | High Court at Kisumu |
| Case Action: | Judgment |
| Judge(s): | Riaga Samuel Cornelius Omolo |
| Citation: | Oremo v Republic [1990] eKLR |
| Court Division: | Criminal |
| Parties Profile: | Individual v Government |
| County: | Kisumu |
| Case Summary: | Oremo v Republic High Court, at Kisumu February 16, 1990 Omolo J Criminal Appeal No 270 of 1989 (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No 1254 of 1989 of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Siaya, Alex Anambo Esq RM) Criminal Practice and Procedure – charge – defective charge – where an accused person is charged with non-existent offence - whether an accused person must have knowledge of possession, on a charge of possession of bhang – where an accused utters “It is true” to the charge – whether such utterance is a plea of guilty. Plea - plea of guilty - where accused utters “It is true” to the charge - whether such utterance is a plea of guilty. The appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty for transporting cannabis sativa contrary to section 11 of the Dangerous Drugs Act and being in possession of cannabis sativa contrary to section 10 of the same Act. As regards the second count, the appellant was recorded to have responded by saying “It is true” whereupon the magistrate entered a plea of guilty. The appellant appealed against both counts. Held: 1. There is clearly no offence called transporting cannabis sativa under section 11 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The appellant in this case was therefore charged with a non-existent offence. 2. Possession of bhang must involve knowledge that the bhang is there. If the appellant told the magistrate he was not aware what he was carrying was bhang, then he was obviously pleading not guilty. 3. The sentence “It is true” does not really amount to a plea of guilty. The appellant in this case went on to tell the magistrate he was not aware that what was being carried in the vehicle was bhang. Appeal allowed. Cases No cases referred to. Statutes Dangerous Drugs Act (cap 245) sections 10(e), 11, 18(2)(a) |
| Case Outcome: | Appeal allowed |
| 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 AT KISUMU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 270 OF 1989
OREMO………….…..…………………. APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……….……………………RESPONDENT
(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No 1254 of 1989 of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Siaya, Alex Anambo Esq RM)
JUDGMENT
The appellant was taken to have pleaded guilty to two counts, one stated to be transporting cannabis sativa, contrary to section 11 as punishable by section 18(2)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act and a second one of being in possession of cannabis sativa, contrary to section 10(e) as punishable by section 18(2)(a) of the same Act. There is clearly no offence called transporting cannabis sativa under section 11 of the Dangerous Drugs Act and the appellant was charged with a non-existence offence under that section. I quash the conviction recorded against him on that count and set aside the sentence imposed thereon.
As regards count 2, when the charge was read to the appellant he is recorded as saying: “It is true”. I have repeatedly drawn to the attention of the magistrates that the sentence “It is true” does not really amount to a plea of guilty. The facts were then stated by the prosecutor to the magistrate and at the end of those facts, the appellant told the magistrate he was not aware that what was being carried in the vehicle was bhang. The magistrate should have entered a plea of not guilty and the case should have gone for trial. Possession of bhang must involve knowledge that the bhang is there and if the appellant told the magistrate he was not aware what he was carrying was bhang, then he was obviously pleading not guilty. The magistrate should have entered a plea of not guilty for him. I am told that the bhang has now been destroyed and there is accordingly no point in my ordering a retrial.
I quash the conviction recorded on count 2 as well as set aside the sentence imposed thereon.
Dated and Delivered at Kisumu this 16th February, 1990
R.S.C OMOLO
……………
JUDGE
Please Wait. Searching ...