Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Lawrence Muthuri Riungu v Republic

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NANYUKI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2016 LAWRENCE MUTHURI RIUNGU …………………………… APPELLANT versus REPUBLIC………….……………………….......…………… RESPONDENT (Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence by Hon. W. J. GICHIMU – PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE dated 31st August 2015 in Nanyuki Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 64 of 2015) JUDGMENT 1. The appellant LAWRENCE MUTHURI RIUNGU was convicted before the Chief Magistrate’ Court Nanyuki of the offence of being within a protected area in possession of snares without authorisation contrary to section 102 (1) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013 (Wildlife Act). After his conviction he was sentenced to pay a fine of kshs.200,000 and in default to serve 2 years imprisonment. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal against the trial court sentence. He has based his appeal on the ground that he has reformed since the imprisoned and has gained valuable skills in prison. 3. Under section 102 of the Wildlife Act the minimum sentence thereof is a fine of kshs. 200,000 and in default imprisonment of 2 years or both such fine and imprisonment. Bearing in mind that provision of that section it follows that the trial court did not err in the sentence it meted out to the appellant. That sentence was within the law. 4. On that ground the appellant’s appeal against sentence has no merit and is dismissed. DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 28th DAY OF MARCH 2017. MARY KASANGO JUDGE CORAM Before Justice Mary Kasango Court Assistant: Ndungu

page 1 of 2

Appellant: Lawrence Muthuri Riungu For the State: ….................................... COURT Judgment delivered in open court. MARY KASANGO JUDGE

page 2 of 2

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.