REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL APPEAL 165 OF 2004 CATHERINE NDINDI PETER ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT Catherine Ndindi Peter was convicted by Resident Magistrate’s Court Makindu for the offence of being in possession of Chang’aa Contrary to Section 3 (1) of the Chang’aa Prohibition Act Cap 70. She was sentenced to six months imprisonment. The appeal is against the sentence. The counsel for appellant argues that the appellant should have been given an option of a fine. The penalty section in Cap 70 is Section 4 (1) which provides that a person who contravenes Section 3 of the Act shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding 10,000/= or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both fine and imprisonment. The prosecutor did not avail previous records in respect of the appellant. She must have therefore been treated as a first offender. Even though the magistrate observed that the offence is prevalent he should have considered an option of fine first. There were no aggravating circumstances to warrant a custodial sentence. The magistrate should be sensitive to use of alternative sentencing methods and help decongest prisons. The appellant has already served one month and about two weeks from the date of sentence which is 2/11/04. In my view, the sentence already served is sufficient and the court sets aside the sentence of six months imprisonment and substitutes it with the sentence so far served. She is hereby set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held. Dated at Machakos this 16th day of December 2004 R.V. WENDOH JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.