[2025] KEHC 16907 (KLR)
The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's request for revision of sentence because section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly bars a party who has a right of appeal from seeking revision. The court found that since the applicant had a right of appeal against the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 16907 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: CK; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E028 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application struck out
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Defilement Offence, Sentencing Principles, Juvenile Justice, 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
CK
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can entertain an application for revision of sentence where the applicant has a right of appeal.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant, a minor, was harsh and excessive in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's request for revision of sentence because section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly bars a party who has a right of appeal from seeking revision. The court found that since the applicant had a right of appeal against the sentence, the application for revision was improperly before the court. Consequently, the application was struck out without consideration of the merits regarding the harshness or appropriateness of the sentence imposed on the minor.
Court Disposition
application struck out
Orders
- The application is struck out for being improperly before the court.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
CK v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E028 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 16907 (KLR) (6 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 16907 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kericho
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E028 of 2024
JK Sergon, J
February 6, 2025
Between
CK
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Applicant was charged and convicted for the offence of defilement contrary to section 8 (1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006 and sentenced to serve a three (3) year term at Shikusa Borstal Institution.
2. The Applicant filed this application for revision under the provisions of section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is the Applicants contention the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Applicant contended that the trial court did not consider the mitigating factors and the fact that he is a minor and therefore the jail term at Shikusa Borstal Institution would hinder his progress to acquire formal education. The Applicant therefore urged this Court to review the sentence and substitute it with a non-custodial sentence.
3. The matter came up for inter partes hearing, the applicant reiterated that this court should substitute the sentence meted out by the trial court with a non-custodial sentence to afford the applicant the chance to pursue formal education. The prosecution vehemently opposed the said application and stated that the trial court took into account the best interest of the child during sentencing and that the sentence should be maintained.
4. Having considered the instant application, it is my finding that this court is barred from entertaining such an application under Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In other words, the law does not allow a party who has a right of appeal to personally approach this court for revision.
5. In the end, I find the instant application to be improperly before this Court. The same is ordered struck out with no order as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KERICHO THIS 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025. ………………………J.K. SERGONJUDGEIn the presence of:C/Assistant – RutohP/Counsel – MaunduApplicant – Present in Person