[2025] KEHC 2626 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant, having pleaded guilty and been convicted, had a right of appeal as to the extent or legality of the sentence under section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, by seeking revision instead of filing an appeal, the applicant contravened section 364(5) of the Criminal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 2626 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joash Biegon; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E075 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- Application for revision struck out as incompetent.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Plea of Guilty, Juvenile Offender, Revision Jurisdiction
- 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
Joash Biegon
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can entertain a revision application by a convict where an appeal lies against sentence.
- 2 Whether the applicant, having pleaded guilty and been convicted, is entitled to seek revision of sentence on grounds of being a minor at the time of sentencing.
- 3 Whether the applicant's approach to the court for revision is barred by section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant, having pleaded guilty and been convicted, had a right of appeal as to the extent or legality of the sentence under section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, by seeking revision instead of filing an appeal, the applicant contravened section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which bars a party from seeking revision where an appeal lies and has not been brought. The court emphasized that revision is not a substitute for appeal and is primarily to correct errors of illegality or impropriety, not to provide an alternative appellate route. Since the applicant personally approached the court for revision when he could have appealed, the...
Court Disposition
Application for revision struck out as incompetent.
Orders
- The revision application is struck out for being incompetently before the court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Biegon v Republic (Criminal Revision E075 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 2626 (KLR) (6 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 2626 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kericho
Criminal Revision E075 of 2022
JK Sergon, J
March 6, 2025
Between
Joash Biegon
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged with the offence of unnatural offence contrary to section 162 (b) of the Penal Code. The applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilt and on 7th January, 2021 sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment by Hon. B.R. Kipyegon in Kericho Criminal Case No. E 450 of 2020 Republic v Joash Biegon.
2. The applicant has moved this court for sentence review pursuant to the provisions of Sections 362, 364 and 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code CAP 75 Laws of Kenya citing that the proceedings and sentence meted out was irregular because the trial court never considered that he was a minor at the time of sentencing. He attached a copy of his birth certificate in support of his claim that he was 16 years at the time of sentencing. He therefore urged this court to quash and set aside the order on sentence and set him free.
3. The matter came up for inter partes hearing and the applicant urged this court to review his sentence and consider placing him on probation for the remaining term of his sentence. The Prosecutor requested this court to have the birth certificate authenticated by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).
4. This court has carefully perused the record and finds that the applicant had made a similar application before this court and that on 4th October, 2022, Lady Justice A. N. Ongeri disallowed the application stating that there is no provision for sentence review where an appeal lies and proceeded to grant the applicant leave to file an appeal. This position still stands.
5. I have considered section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that; “No Appeal shall be allowed in the case of an accused person who has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on that plea by a subordinate court except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.” It is clear from the above quoted excerpt that the Applicant has a right of Appeal as against the sentence. The Applicant opted to file this Revision instead of challenging the Order on sentence by way of an Appeal. The Law does not permit a party who is entitled to challenge the order on conviction or sentence on Appeal to personally approach the Court for revision. It would appear from the provision of Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the Court may act suo moto and may be prompted by another person or body other than the convict to exercise its power of revision. Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that; “When an appeal lies from a finding, sentence or order and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instant of the party who could have appealed.”
6. In the case Martin Mavuti Kituyi v Republic HCCR. Revision No. 27 of 2013 the court rendered itself as follows; “… the very nature of revision as a discretionary remedy explains the policy underpinnings of Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code; that revision should not be a substitute for an appeal whatsoever or insisted upon by a party who has not filed an Appeal where one was provided for. Revision primarily serves to put right instances where a finding, sentence, order or proceedings of a lower court are tainted by incorrectness, impropriety, illegality or irregularity…’’
7. Having personally approached this court to prompt this court to exercise its supervisory power of revision, the applicant breached the Provisions of Section 364 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. I find the revision to be incompetently before this court. The same cannot be entertained by this court. I hereby issue an order striking out the revision.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025J.K. SERGONJUDGEIn the Presence of:-C/Assistant – RutohProsecutor – OgutuApplicant – Present in Person