R. v. Abdurahaman s/o Sima, Crim. Rev. 10-DDM-72, 16/6/72, Mnzavas, J.

 R. v. Abdurahaman s/o Sima, Crim. Rev. 10-DDM-72, 16/6/72, Mnzavas, J.

The accused, a landlord, was, on his own plea of guilty, convicted of subjecting a tenant to annoyance c/s 32 of the Rent Restriction Act, Cap. 479, and sentenced to Shs. 200/= fine or 3 months imprisonment in default. On 4/1/72, in the morning, the accused went to his tenant’s room and locked the door to his room in an attempt to compel the tenant to vacate the premises. The accused appears to have done this after having failed to persuade the tenant to vacate the premises voluntarily. The question of sentence was discussed on revision.

            Held: (1) “The sentence of Shs. 200/= or 3 months imprisonment cannot be said to be lenient. But the vital question is not whether the sentence is excessive but whether it is so manifestly excessive as to warrant reduction by this court.” [Citing: R. v. Jonathan s/o Chamade, (1968) H.C.D. n. 237; Hadija d/o Omari v. R., (1970) H.C.D. 158; Arell &Hocken v. R., (1970) H.C.D. n. 159]. (2) “In the present case, it cannot in my view, the forcibly said that the sentence of Shs. 200/= fine or 3 months imprisonment is so excessive as to be unsustainable. The main purpose of the Rent Restriction Act is to safeguard innocent tenants from unscrupulous landlords like the accused. That the offence is not a minor one is reflected by the fact that the Ordinance provides a penalty of Shs. 2000/= fine or six months imprisonment or both such fine and imprisonment. I agree that the learned trial magistrate did not inquire as to the financial ability of the accused to pay the fine. But the fact that the accused in landlord and readily paid the fine shows that the accused was not all that a man of little means. In the circumstances I tend to agree with the learned state attorney that the sentence of Shs. 200/= fine, though severe to a first offender, is not so manifestly excessive as to call for interference by this court.” (3) Sentence upheld.