Court Saves Chinese Man Fined Ksh 292.2M for Selling Fake Shoes

The High Court in Nairobi has reduced the sentence and fine slapped on a Chinese man accused of supplying fake shoes.

In the judgment delivered by Judge Diana Rachel Kavedza, the man who was previously fined Ksh292.2 million, an amount he defaulted for two years, was rather ordered to pay Ksh10 million in default or serve a one year-term in jail.

According to the judge, the lower court failed to determine the market value of the supplied shoes.

“In his mitigation, the appellant stated that he was a remorseful first offender, he prayed for a non-custodial sentence. I find the sentence imposed by the trial court to have been harsh and excessive,” the judge ruled.

A photo of a trader selling shoes at Nairobi’s Central Business District (CBD).


Daily Monitor

The court documents revealed that the convict imported counterfeit products into the country contrary to the Anti-Counterfeit Act of 2008.

According to the Act, it is an offence to manufacture, sell, expose, dispose of, possess, or fail to declare any counterfeit product.

“A person convicted of an offense shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to a fine, in respect of each article or item involved in the particular act of dealing in counterfeit goods to which the offense relates, not less than three times the value of the prevailing retail price of the goods, or both,” reads part of the act.

Witnesses called to testify before the court claimed that the convict was indeed in possession of counterfeit shoes

An inspector from the Anti Counterfeit Authority also revealed that the goods had been placed in a go-down in Mombasa, where about 1000 boxes of fake shoes were seized.

In his defence, the Chinese national argued that he was an employee of the company which had hired him to work at the godown. 

He added that the shoes were reportedly worth Ksh146.1 million, yet the trial court sentenced him to pay twice the amount.

The Chinese national hence sought legal redress at the High Court.

“In his submission, he argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and not in consideration of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines,” read part of the court documents.

An inside glimpse of a court of law.


Source link