Samwel Mwendawano v. R., Crim. App. 658-D-67, 3/11/67, Saudi J.

Samwel Mwendawano v. R., Crim. App. 658-D-67, 3/11/67, Saudi J.

Two accused were fined Shs. 300/- each for affray, contrary to P.C. s. 87. They were unable to pay the fines and were imprisoned in default.

            The Court noted; “This Court has repeatedly expressed strong views on the point that the fine a court should impose on any person convicted of an offence should be one that such person would be able to pay. The idea of imposing a fine is to keep the accused person out of prison, where he might worsen his character by making contacts with hardened criminals who are always found in the jail. With hardened criminals who are always found in jail. There is therefore no good ground for a court to impose a fine which an accused person cannot pay and in consequence has to go to jail in default of payment. It is imperative that inquiries as to the accused person’s ability to pay a certain amount of fine should be made before any fine is imposed.” [Citing R. v. Bison s/o Mwanga, 2 T.L.R.(R) 31; Mohamed Juma v. R., 1T.L.R. (R) 257.] “Without fixing any particular figures to be followed, it does not appear to me to be reasonable to impose a fine which exceeds one-third of the monthly income of an accused person.”