Bett v Republic (Criminal Revision E018 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7065 (KLR) (16 April 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7065 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL REVISION E018 OF 2026 NIO ADAGI, J APRIL 16, 2026 BETWEEN MICHAEL BETT ...................................................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Applicant, Michael Kibett filed a Notice of Motion application dated 19th March 2026 which is supported by his supporting affidavit of even date and filed under a certificate of urgency of the same date. The Applicant seeks to have his sentence of Kshs200,000/= fine or in default 2½ years imprisonment reviewed, set aside and or quashed and that motor vehicle registration number KDJ 383Z held at Gilgil weighbridge be released to the owner. 2. The Applicant contends that he was arrested at Gilgil and charged before the Chief Magistrate’s court at Mavoko with the offence of evading weighbridge on 9th March 2026 after spending 5 days in police custody. 3. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 Laws of Kenya vests in the High Court to revise decisions made by the subordinate courts in the following terms The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of any such subordinate court”. 4. The orders which the High Court may make upon revision are provided under Section 364 of the Penal Code which provide as follows:364. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7065/eng@2026-04-16 1
page 1 of 3
(1) In the case of a proceeding in a subordinate court the record of which has been called for or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may – (a) in the case of a conviction, exercise any of the powers conferred on it as a court of appeal by sections 354, 357 and 358, and may enhance the sentence; (b) in the case of any other order other than an order of acquittal, alter or reverse the order." 5. This court called for the trial court’s record from Mavoko Laws courts which it has had the opportunity to examine. The Applicant was charged with the offence of evading weighbridge contrary to Section 20 (1) (a) as read with Section 21(1) of the East African Community Vehicle Load Control Act 2016. The particulars of the offence are that on 10/01/2026 at about 2120Hrs along Nairobi-Mombasa Road at Athi River weighbridge, in Machakos County being a driver of motor vehicle registration No. KDJ 383Z make Isuzu evaded the said motor vehicle at the weighbridge. 6. The Applicant was arraigned in court on 09/03/2026 where he pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted on his own plea of guilty. The Applicant was then sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs.200,000/ = in default to serve 2½ years imprisonment. 7. In reviewing a sentence, the High Court will be looking at the legality and correctness of both the proceedings in the subordinate court as well as the sentence imposed. The principles upon which the court may interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court were laid down in the case of Wanjema v Republic (1971) EA 493 which are that if the court is satisfied that in arriving at the sentence the trial court did not take into account a relevant fact or that it took into account an irrelevant factor or that in all the circumstances of the case, the sentence is harsh and excessive. 8. The East African Community Vehicle Load Control Act 2016 provides; Section 20. (1) A person commits an offence under this Act if that person— (a) being a transporter, bypasses, absconds or evades a weighbridge or weighing station 21(1) A person convicted of an offence under section 20 by a national court shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifteen thousand US dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both. 9. I have reviewed the trial record and I observe that the Applicant in his mitigation stated that he had a sick patient, likely the reason he was in a hurry. The Applicant has stated that he was in police custody for 5 days and this court is of the view that the Applicant would have been interrogated on why he evaded the weighbridge and his reason for so doing investigated and confirmed before being charged. 11. The prosecution had no records for the Applicant which clearly shows the Applicant was a first offender. 12. Considering the circumstances of this case, it is my respective opinion that the Applicant’s sentence to pay a fine of Kshs.200,000/= in default to serve 2½ years imprisonment was excessive and harsh. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7065/eng@2026-04-16 2
page 2 of 3
13. The upshot is that the conviction of the trial court is upheld but the sentence of Kshs.200,000/= in default to serve 2½ years imprisonment is set aside and substituted with a fine of Kshs.30,000/= in default to serve three months imprisonment from the date of sentencing which is 9th March 2026. 14. I note that the trial court ordered for the release of the subject motor vehicle herein, thus the Applicant’s prayer for the same is overtaken by events. 15. It is so ordered. This revision file is closed. RULING WRITTEN, DATED & SIGNED AT MACHAKOS THIS THIS 16TH APRIL 2026 NOEL I. ADAGI JUDGE DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON TEAMS AT MACHAKOS THIS 16TH APRIL 2026 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7065/eng@2026-04-16 3
page 3 of 3