[2025] KEHC 10647 (KLR)
The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate any incorrectness, illegality, or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial court. The sentence of a Ksh. 500,000 fine or, in default, one and a half years imprisonment was within the statutory maximum prescribed by the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 10647 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Gabet Bekel; Applicant: Terfar Desaleng; Applicant: Dalamo Teleka; Applicant: Trakeg Bekel; Applicant: Charinat Gita; Applicant: Maricose Bincamo; Applicant: Dasita Gabure; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Isiolo
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 17 July 2025
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E005 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- SC Chirchir
- Legal Topics
- Revision Jurisdiction, Illegal Presence, Sentencing Principles
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gabet Bekel
Applicant
Terfar Desaleng
Applicant
Dalamo Teleka
Applicant
Trakeg Bekel
Applicant
Charinat Gita
Applicant
Maricose Bincamo
Applicant
Dasita Gabure
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was incorrect, illegal or improper under the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the applicants established valid grounds for invoking the High Court's revision jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate any incorrectness, illegality, or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial court. The sentence of a Ksh. 500,000 fine or, in default, one and a half years imprisonment was within the statutory maximum prescribed by the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act. The applicants did not provide any grounds for revision, nor did they challenge the legality or propriety of the sentence. The court emphasized that the revision jurisdiction is not an automatic right and must be invoked only where there is a demonstrable error or impropriety. Since no such grounds were established, the application for revision was dismissed as lacking...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
Bekel & 6 others v Republic (Criminal Revision E005 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 10647 (KLR) (Crim) (17 July 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 10647 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Isiolo
Criminal
Criminal Revision E005 of 2025
SC Chirchir, J
July 17, 2025
Between
Gabet Bekel
1st Applicant
Terfar Desaleng
2nd Applicant
Dalamo Teleka
3rd Applicant
Trakeg Bekel
4th Applicant
Charinat Gita
5th Applicant
Maricose Bincamo
6th Applicant
Dasita Gabure
7th Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Applicants herein were convicted by the trial court of the offence of being unlawfully present in Kenya contrary to Section 53(1)(j) as read with Section 53(2) of the Kenyan Citizenship and Immigration Act 2011. They were convicted on their own plea and fined Ksh.500,000 and in default, a prison term of 1 and a half years.
2. They have moved this court seeking for an order of revision with a view to reversing the sentence meted out by the trial court
3. The Revision jurisdiction of the High Court is founded on Section 362 to 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code(CPC). The purpose of revision as set out under Section 362 of the CPC is to ascertain the correctness, legality or propriety of the subordinate court’s proceedings, orders or sentences.
4. Section 53(1)(j) as read with Section 53(2) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act under which the Applicants were charged provide for a maximum fine of Ksh.500,000 or to a prison term not exceeding 3 years, upon conviction. The Applicants herein were each fined Ksh. 500,000 or one and a half years in default.
5. The Applicants have not faulted the fine or sentence. They have not pinpointed any fault in it. In other words, they have not provided the grounds for revisions. Further the above sentence and fine are within the law.
6. This Application is among the many others that are increasingly coming up before the high court seeking orders of revision, without setting out the grounds for invoking the jurisdiction of the high court. It is as though convicts are increasingly treating revision Applications as an automatic right whenever they feel aggrieved by the orders of the subordinate courts. This trend if allowed to go on risks subjecting the Revision jurisdiction of the high court to abuse. This trend must be curtailed.
7. They must be reminded that for an order or sentence or proceedings to be eligible for revision, the Applicant must demonstrate that such a sentence, order or proceedings was incorrect, illegal or improper.
8. In present case, if the Applicant considered the sentence excessive, then the appropriate remedy was an Appeal and not a Revision.
9. In a nutshell, I do not find any incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the sentence passed by the trial court. The Application has no merit. It is hereby dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ISIOLO THIS 17TH JULY 2025. S.CHIRCHIRJUDGEIn the presence of:Roba Katelo- Court AssistantGabet Bekel- ApplicantMr. Ngetich for the Respondent.