https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10180
The court held that the applicant had only served two years of a five-year sentence and that, given the serious nature of the defilement offence, he was not suitable for early release or a non-custodial sentence; the sentence should run to completion.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 10180 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: ABDUL RAUF YUNUS; Respondent: REPUBLIC
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E100 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Sentence Review Application After Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Judges
- ["DR Kavedza"]
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sentence Review, Custodial Sentence, Non Custodial Sentence, Rehabilitation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
ABDUL RAUF YUNUS
Applicant
REPUBLIC
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Sentence Review Application After Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant had served sufficient time to justify review or reduction of sentence
- 2 Whether the seriousness of the defilement offence warranted early release or a non-custodial sentence
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant had only served two years of a five-year sentence and that, given the serious nature of the defilement offence, he was not suitable for early release or a non-custodial sentence; the sentence should run to completion.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 3rd June 2026 is dismissed in its entirety.
- The applicant shall serve the sentence to completion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIBERA** **CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E100 OF 2026** ABDUL RAUF YUNUS….…..……………………………..……APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………………………………………..….RESPONDENT **RULING** 1. Before the trial court, the applicant was charged and after a full trial convicted for the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(4) of the Sexual Offence Act, No. 3 of 2006. He was sentenced to serve twelve (12) years imprisonment. On appeal, his sentence was reduced to five (5) years imprisonment. 2. The applicant has filed an application dated 3rd June 2026. The application is premised on the grounds that the time served has been sufficient rehabilitation. He urged the court to review the sentence. 3. From the record, the applicant has served two years of the custodial term imposed. Having considered the circumstances precluding the applicant’s conviction, it is evident that the offence is so serious, thus, the applicant is not suitable for early release or a non-custodial sentence. In my view, the applicant should serve his sentence to completion both to reinforce rehabilitation and the seriousness of the offence. 4. Accordingly, I find that the application is lacking in merit and is dismissed in its entirety. Orders accordingly. **Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 13th day of July 2026** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **D. KAVEDZA** **JUDGE**