Republic v Tuiya & 2 others (Case E179 of 2024) [2025] KEMC 328 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Three men, including an 85-year-old, got five years in prison for elephant tusks because Kenya's wildlife law sets a mandatory minimum sentence courts cannot reduce.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Applicability of the mandatory minimum sentence under section 92(4) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act
The court held it had no discretion to depart from the statutory minimum; each accused was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of five years' imprisonment, with time in pre-trial detention credited.
The court applied paragraph 2.3.16 of the Sentencing Guidelines, 2023, which binds courts to statutory mandatory minimum sentences. It noted that the Sentencing Guidelines themselves flag constitutional concerns raised in other cases about mandatory minimum sentences, but held that what is set in statute governs, and that community service orders recommended in the Pre-Sentence Reports were unavailable.
Whether age, health, mitigation and Pre-Sentence Report recommendations justify a non-custodial sentence
They do not; the mandatory minimum sentence applies notwithstanding the 1st accused's advanced age of 85 years, the 2nd accused's ill-health and breadwinner status, and the 3rd accused's youth.
The court considered the mitigation by Mr. Lusweti for all three accused and the detailed Pre-Sentence Reports, including the Probation Officer's recommendation of a community service order for Kiprono. It nevertheless held that the mandatory minimum sentence in section 92(4) forecloses a non-custodial disposition, while noting the aggravating wildlife-trafficking factors under paragraphs 5.2.8-5.2.10 of the Sentencing Guidelines.
Credit for time spent in pre-trial detention
The court took into account the time all three accused spent in pre-trial detention, directing that the sentence runs from the date of arrest.
Relying on Justice Reuben Nyakundi's decision in Hussein Wanjala Wekesa v Republic, where the High Court directed that remand time be accounted for under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court applied the same principle to all three accused, including Haron who was briefly out before judgment.
Seriousness of wildlife trafficking and forfeiture of instruments and trophies
Wildlife trafficking is organized crime harming Kenya's tourism and ecosystems; the elephant tusks and the motorcycle used to transport them were forfeited to the Kenya Wildlife Service.
The court drew on the Sentencing Guidelines' treatment of wildlife offences, expert evidence from Dr. Mwebi of the National Museums of Kenya that three elephants died and the tusks were freshly cut, and literature on the judiciary's role in wildlife conservation. It aligned itself with protecting Kenya's wildlife and exercised the forfeiture power in section 105(1) of the Act.
Legal principles established
#- Where the law provides a mandatory minimum sentence, the sentencing court is bound and must not impose a sentence lower than prescribed, including by substituting a fine or non-custodial order
- Time spent in pre-trial detention must be taken into account when computing a sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Court orders
#- 1.Kiprono, Eric and Haron each sentenced to five (5) years in prison, the sentence to run from the date of their arrest
- 2.14 days right of appeal given to the accused persons
- 3.The elephant tusks (Exhibit 2) forfeited to the Kenya Wildlife Service under section 105(1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013
- 4.The motorcycle KMEF 189Z (Exhibit 15) forfeited to the Kenya Wildlife Service under section 105(1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013
- 5.The surety who stood in for Haron discharged and the security document deposited in court returned to him, with any caveat/restriction lifted
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Criminal jurisdiction over offences under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, Cap 376 (section 92(4) as read with section 105(1))
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Tuiya & 2 others (Case E179 of 2024) [2025] KEMC 328 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Case E179 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/328/eng@2025-07-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.