High Court 9143 of 2026

c. THAT the learned Magistrate erred in and fact by not giving the Appellant the option of paying fine. d. THAT the fact of the case were not read to the Appellant. e. THAT the records of the Appellant were not supported by any evidence. 2. The Appeal was heard by way of oral submissions. 3. The appellant was only challenging the sentence and not the conviction. 4. Mr. Ombati for the appellant submitted that the sentence of 2 years imprisonment was excessive, that the appellant had pleaded guilty and ought to have been given the option of fine. 5. Ms. Omari for the state submitted that the sentence by trial court was appropriate as appellant was a repeat offender, had been arraigned severally for the samee offence and paid fine of kshs. 67,000/= and kshs. 122,000/=, and kshs. 5,000/= at different times. HCCRA NO.E009/2025 JUDGMENT Page 2

page 2 of 6

6. I sought a social inquiry report pending the judgment and report was filed on 4/6/2026. Analysis and Determination 7. The appellant was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. He was charged with being in possession of an Alcoholic drink that does not conform to the requirements of the Act contrary to Section 27(1)(b) as read with Section 27(4) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act No. 4 of 2010. 8. That on the 13th day of August 2025 at around 1200hrs at Toniok village, in Koibatek Sub-County within Baringo County he was found being in possession of an alcoholic drink namely Chang’aa to wit 7 litres packed separately into 5 litres white jerrican and two 1 litre plastic bottles in contravention of Alcoholic Drinks Control Act No. 4 of 2010. 9. He pleaded guilty and in mitigation he told the court that he had school fees problems and one of his children was diabetic. 10. Section 27(4) of the Alcoholic and Drinks Control Act provides that a person who contravenes the provisions of the Act, is found in possession of Alcoholic drink that does HCCRA NO.E009/2025 JUDGMENT Page 3

page 3 of 6

not conform to the provisions of the Act, is liable to a fine of kshs. 2 million or 5 years imprisonment or both. 11. In this case the appellant was a repeat offender, paying fines off upon conviction. 12. The trial court in the exercise of its discretion found that a custodial sentence would be a deterrent sentence. 13. I have perused the social inquiry report it is evident from the report that the appellant is also not truthful. His wife left with the children to her parents’ home before this case. 14. His children live with their maternal grandparents while his wife works out of the country and he does not offer any support. It is also stated in the report that the only person in the family who is diabetic is his sister whom the appellant does not support. 15. So, should this court interfere with the sentence of the subordinate court? 16. The community is not ready to receive him back home and there is a general consideration that they are better off when he is in custody. HCCRA NO.E009/2025 JUDGMENT Page 4

page 4 of 6

17. Is the sentence excessive? 18. Having looked at the lower court file, and the history of the appellant, the sentence appears appropriate in the circumstances of the offence. The appeal is therefor without merit and the same is dismissed. The sentence is upheld. Right of Appeal explained. Judgment Dated, signed and delivered virtually at Eldama Ravine on 26th June 2026. MUMBUA T. MATHEKA JUDGE Court Assistant – Ian Appellant present Ms. Omari for state N/A for Counsel for the appellant HCCRA NO.E009/2025 JUDGMENT Page 5

page 5 of 6

HCCRA NO.E009/2025 JUDGMENT Page 6

page 6 of 6