ARISING FROM MOMBASA TRAFFIC CASE NUMBER E179 0F 2026
1. The application before this Court is brought under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75, as well as Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The applicant seeks a stay of execution of the sentence imposed in Traffic Case E109 of 2026 and a revision of the Kshs. 200,000 fine imposed therein. In default, the applicant was to serve a 60-day term of imprisonment.
2. No affidavit was filed in support of the application; accordingly, the Court shall rely on the grounds stated in the application. The application details that the traffic case concerned the offence of driving a motor vehicle on a public road with dimensions exceeding the maximum prescribed under the law, contrary to Section 55(2) read together with Section 58(1) of the Traffic Act, Cap 403, Laws of Kenya. The motor vehicle in question, registration number UAT 061W (Mercedes), exceeded the legal dimensions by 0.65 metres in length and 0.55 metres in width.
The applicant pleaded guilty but contends that the fine of Kshs. 200,000, or in default 60 days’ imprisonment, was excessive and manifestly harsh. He further complains that the trial court failed to consider that traffic fines should be proportionate and not ruinous, and that no injury occurred, nor was any public danger occasioned by the offence.
3. The applicant was imprisoned for five days, and on 20th January 2026, he paid a fine of Kshs. 180,000, calculated pro rata to the days served, in accordance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Analysis and Determination
4. The principles governing revisional jurisdiction have been established in numerous cases, most notably in Martin Mavuti Kituyi v Republic, HCCR Revision No. 27 of 2013, where the Court stated:
“… the very nature of revision as a discretionary remedy explains the policy underpinnings of Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code; that revision should not be a substitute for an appeal whatsoever, nor insisted upon by a party who has not filed an appeal where one was provided for. Revision primarily serves to put right instances where a finding, sentence, order, or proceedings of a lower court are tainted by incorrectness, impropriety, illegality or irregularity…”
5. Similarly, in Joseph Nduvi Mbuvi v Republic [2019] eKLR, it was held:
“In my considered view, the object of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is to enable the High Court, in appropriate cases, whether during the pendency of proceedings in the subordinate court or at the conclusion of the proceedings, to correct manifest irregularities or illegalities and give appropriate directions on the manner in which the trial, if still ongoing, should proceed. In other words, the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction includes ensuring that where the proceedings in the lower court have been legally derailed, necessary directions are given to bring the same back on track so that the trial proceeds towards its intended destination without hitches. Not only is the jurisdiction exercisable where the subordinate court has made a finding, sentence, or order, but it also extends to determine the regularity of any proceedings of such subordinate court.”
6. In the present case, the applicant contends that the fine of Kshs. 200,000 was excessive or manifestly harsh. However, Section 58(1) of the Traffic Act, Cap 403, provides that a fine shall not exceed Kshs. 400,000, or imprisonment of up to two years, or both. While the applicant has raised factors generally considered under Section 55(1) of the Traffic Act, the offence in this instance arose under Section 55(2). The applicant has not demonstrated any incorrectness, illegality, impropriety, or irregularity in the sentence imposed.
7. Accordingly, the revision is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Conclusion
7. The application for revision is dismissed.
Dated, signed, and delivered in Open Court/Online via MS Teams, this …25TH…… day of …FEBRUARY…… 2026.
HON. LADY JUSTICE W. K. MICHENI
JUDGE
1. The application before this Court is brought under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75, as well as Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The applicant seeks a stay of execution of the sentence imposed in Traffic Case E109 of 2026 and a revision of the Kshs. 200,000 fine imposed therein. In default, the applicant was to serve a 60-day term of imprisonment.
2. No affidavit was filed in support of the application; accordingly, the Court shall rely on the grounds stated in the application. The application details that the traffic case concerned the offence of driving a motor vehicle on a public road with dimensions exceeding the maximum prescribed under the law, contrary to Section 55(2) read together with Section 58(1) of the Traffic Act, Cap 403, Laws of Kenya. The motor vehicle in question, registration number UAT 061W (Mercedes), exceeded the legal dimensions by 0.65 metres in length and 0.55 metres in width.
The applicant pleaded guilty but contends that the fine of Kshs. 200,000, or in default 60 days’ imprisonment, was excessive and manifestly harsh. He further complains that the trial court failed to consider that traffic fines should be proportionate and not ruinous, and that no injury occurred, nor was any public danger occasioned by the offence.
3. The applicant was imprisoned for five days, and on 20th January 2026, he paid a fine of Kshs. 180,000, calculated pro rata to the days served, in accordance with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Analysis and Determination
4. The principles governing revisional jurisdiction have been established in numerous cases, most notably in Martin Mavuti Kituyi v Republic, HCCR Revision No. 27 of 2013, where the Court stated:
“… the very nature of revision as a discretionary remedy explains the policy underpinnings of Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code; that revision should not be a substitute for an appeal whatsoever, nor insisted upon by a party who has not filed an appeal where one was provided for. Revision primarily serves to put right instances where a finding, sentence, order, or proceedings of a lower court are tainted by incorrectness, impropriety, illegality or irregularity…”
5. Similarly, in Joseph Nduvi Mbuvi v Republic [2019] eKLR, it was held:
“In my considered view, the object of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is to enable the High Court, in appropriate cases, whether during the pendency of proceedings in the subordinate court or at the conclusion of the proceedings, to correct manifest irregularities or illegalities and give appropriate directions on the manner in which the trial, if still ongoing, should proceed. In other words, the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction includes ensuring that where the proceedings in the lower court have been legally derailed, necessary directions are given to bring the same back on track so that the trial proceeds towards its intended destination without hitches. Not only is the jurisdiction exercisable where the subordinate court has made a finding, sentence, or order, but it also extends to determine the regularity of any proceedings of such subordinate court.”
6. In the present case, the applicant contends that the fine of Kshs. 200,000 was excessive or manifestly harsh. However, Section 58(1) of the Traffic Act, Cap 403, provides that a fine shall not exceed Kshs. 400,000, or imprisonment of up to two years, or both. While the applicant has raised factors generally considered under Section 55(1) of the Traffic Act, the offence in this instance arose under Section 55(2). The applicant has not demonstrated any incorrectness, illegality, impropriety, or irregularity in the sentence imposed.
7. Accordingly, the revision is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Conclusion
7. The application for revision is dismissed.
Dated, signed, and delivered in Open Court/Online via MS Teams, this …25TH…… day of …FEBRUARY…… 2026.
HON. LADY JUSTICE W. K. MICHENI
JUDGE