https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6805
The application failed because the High Court had already determined the applicant’s appeal and was therefore functus officio; any further challenge to sentence lay before the Court of Appeal, not by way of revision before the same court.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 6805 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: CHRISTINE WANJIRA GIKUNJU; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E059 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision Application / Ruling on Sentence Review Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Judges
- ["DR Kavedza"]
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Revision Jurisdiction, Functus Officio, Consecutive Sentences, Custodial and Non Custodial Sentencing
- 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
CHRISTINE WANJIRA GIKUNJU
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision Application / Ruling on Sentence Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court could review or revise the applicant’s sentence after determining her appeal
- 2 Whether the applicant’s grounds justified reduction of the custodial sentence to a non-custodial sentence
Ratio Decidendi
The application failed because the High Court had already determined the applicant’s appeal and was therefore functus officio; any further challenge to sentence lay before the Court of Appeal, not by way of revision before the same court.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- Prayer for sentence review rejected.
- No alteration made to the existing sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIBERA** **CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E059 OF 2026** CHRISTINE WANJIRA GIKUNJU…………………………………..APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC…………………………………………………………RESPONDENT **RULING** 1. The applicant was jointly charged and after a full trial convicted with another not before this court with four counts of offence four counts, namely: obtaining money by false pretences contrary to section 313 of the Penal Code; making a false document contrary to section 357(a) of the Penal Code; forgery of a stamp contrary to section 352A of the Penal Code; and personation contrary to section 382(1) of the Penal Code. 2. She was sentenced in Count I to pay a fine of Kshs. 5,000,000, in default to serve one and a half years’ imprisonment; and to two years’ imprisonment in each of Counts II, III and IV. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. 3. Her appeal in Criminal Appeal No. E077 of 2025 partially succeeded. The sentence in Count I was varied to a fine of Kshs. 5,000,000, in default to serve twelve months’ imprisonment. The conviction and sentence in Count II were quashed and set aside, while the convictions and sentences in Counts III and IV were upheld. The sentence in Count I was ordered to run consecutively to the concurrent sentences imposed in Counts III and IV. 4. The applicant has filed present application dated 14th April 2026 seeking sentence review. The grounds raised are that the time spent in custody has been sufficient rehabilitation. She is remorseful for the offence committed. She urged the court to revise the sentence to a non-custodial sentence. 5. From the record, the applicant filed an appeal against her conviction and sentence which was heard and determined by this court. This court is therefore functus officio. The right forum for the applicant is the Court of Appeal. 6. In the circumstances, the application is found to be lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed. **Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 19th day of May 2026** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **D. KAVEDZA** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Applicant Present Mutuma for the Respondent Karimi Court Assistants.