In a case between Kengeles, the restaurant chain, and Nairobi City Council, the High Court has decided that it is unconstitutional for bodies like the police or the Nairobi City Council to automatically impose the maximum fine if there is a differentiated fine structure. By Albert Muriuki.
The High Court Ruling ruling by Justice Jackton Boma Ojwang was a in a case between Kengeles Holdings Ltd, the owners of the popular chain of Kengeles restaurants, and Nairobi City Council. Kengeles was charged under section 14 (e) of the City Councils Foods, Drugs and Chemicals Substances (General) Regulations. Under this regulations, the prescribed penalty is KES2,000 for a first offender under section 17, but section 36 of the statute has different penalties with a maximum of KES500,000.
It was argued in court that the penalty provided for under section 17 was self-contained, and a greater penalty on the basis of section 36 of the Act could not apply at the same time. The objection was raised that the City Council had produced standard charge-sheets that were indifferent to the distinction in the levels of penalty between sections 14 (e) of the Regulations and 36 of the Act.
So far, various statutory bodies and the police have standard form charge sheets that lump the maximum penalty with a lower penalty for the particular offence. The effect is that typically the maximum penalty gets imposed. In Kengeles’ case, instead of paying KES2,000, they had to pay the maximum amount, a staggering KES500,000, which is the general penalty under the Act when there is no prescribed penalty for the offence. The magistrate may then release the offender on a cash bail of up to KES100,000.
The relevant part of the Constitution of Kenya at Section 77 states that no person shall be held to be guilty of a criminal offence on account of an act or omission that did not, at the time it took place, constitute such an offence, “and no penalty shall be imposed for a criminal offence that is severer in degree or description than the maximum penalty that might have been imposed for that offence at the time when it was committed”.
This ruling is an important precedent as it confirms that it is unconstitutional to be fined in excess of the maximum penalty prescribed by law. And it is not just businesses that are affected by the illegal imposition of a maximum penalty – it is also a serious nuisance factor for individuals:
In traffic offences, offenders are regularly fined in excess of the maximum penalty prescribed: For example, the Traffic Act, Section 36 (3) states that a person who fails to carry his driving license can only be subjected to a fine not exceeding KES100. Routinely, individuals are fined in the thousands, mostly KES8,000 or Kes5,000. Similarly, traffic rules made under section 119 Rule 59 A that prohibit talking on a mobile phone while driving, under Rule 99 (a) the maximum penalty for a first offender should be KES2,000 or imprisonment of up to 6 months. However, drivers in Kenya are fined up to KES10,000. They are given legitimate receipts, but are often not familiar with the law and therefore not aware that they actually have been fined the maximum. This practice has now been declared illegal by justice Ojwang.
In principle, the ruling should bring relief to both businesses like Kengeles and individuals if it is implemented. And this is a big if, given the general corrupt murkiness that surrounds fines and regulations. At the same, the City Council and organisations such as the police will see a drastic reduction in revenues collected by fines that are charged at the maximum instead of the minimum.
|