- He ignored prosecution's argument that alcoblow test results showed Michael Mugo the accused motorist had consumed beyond required limit
- The magistrate said police failed to prove the motorist was unable to control the vehicle
- He accused police officers of misunderstanding the Traffic Act's stipulation on driving under the influence of alcohol
- Khaemba stated that one was only liable for the offence if they are found to be unable to control the vehicle
- He said a motorist who was too drunk to drive could not overpower two sober trained police officers
A Kiambu Court has made a landmark ruling that will push traffic officers to reconsider arresting motorists for the offence of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Kiambu Senior Resident Magistrate (SRM) Brian Khaemba highlighted police officers' lack of know-how of Section 44 (1) of the Traffic Act, stating that being drunk alone was not crime.
In the ruling delivered in favour of Michael Mugo who was arrested for driving under influence of alcohol along Banana-Ruaka Road on Wednesday, May 23, 2018, Khaemba said one was liable for such an offence only if they were unable to control the motor vehicle.
The prosecution had argued that an alcoblow test conducted on Mugo established he had surpassed the minimum 0.35mg threshold clocking 0.53mg instead but the magistrate overlooked the submission.
Section 44 (1) of the Traffic Act states any person who, when driving a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, is under influence of drink or drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle, shall be guilty of an offence.
"The issue to be determined in this matter is whether the driver was under influence of drink or drug. If yes, whether as a result of the drink or drug he was incapable of having proper control of the vehicle," the magistrate counseled.