Langat v Republic (Criminal Revision E036 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10982 (KLR) (14 July 2026) (Ruling)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERCHO CRIMINAL REVISION NO.E036 OF 2026 COSMAS LANGAT …….………………………………………...APPLICANT * V E R S U S – REPUBLIC……………………………………………………...RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Applicant has filed an undated Application seeking a review of sentence in Criminal Case No. E183 of 2026 at Kericho, in which, on his own plea of guilty, was convicted of the offence of being in possession of narcotic drugs contrary to section 3(2)(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act No. 4 of 1994 on 23rd January 2026. 2. The particulars are that the Applicant, on the 21st day of January 2026 at around 2030hrs at Kapsoit Location, in Belgut Sub-County within Kericho County was found in possession of Narcotic Drugs namely cannabis (bhang) to with 13 rolls with a street value of Kshs. 700/= in contravention of the said Act. 3. In his Application for review the Applicant stated that he was repentant and remorseful for the offence. He had undergone various vocational and spiritual education courses in prison. He was the sole bread winner at home and he has learnt that crime does not pay. 4. The State opposed the Application as the sentence was lawful and the Applicant had the option of an appeal if he was dissatisfied by the sentence. The state further stated that the Applicant had not demonstrated a violation of his rights or that the sentence was excessive. He has not demonstrated that his mitigation was not considered by the trial court. 5. The state further stated that the Applicant has informed the court that he is satisfied with the conviction and sentence and cannot seek review. The trial court enjoyed the power of discretion in issuing the sentence and in the absence of everything the state has submitted, the state prayed the sentence not be disturbed even if the Applicant was remorseful this is not the proper forum, raise the Application and should have addressed it at Appeal. **Analysis and Determination** 1. I have considered the application, the record of the subordinate court, and the submissions by the State. The issue for determination is whether this Court should exercise its revisionary jurisdiction to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court. 2. The High Court derives its revisionary jurisdiction from Articles 165(3)(6) and (7) of the Constitution and Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In exercising that jurisdiction, the Court is required to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order of the subordinate court, as well as the regularity of the proceedings. Although revision is not intended to serve as a substitute for an appeal, the Court retains the power to interfere where the interests of justice so demand. 3. The record shows that the Applicant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, admitted the facts as read by the prosecution, and was accordingly convicted. There is no challenge to the conviction, and I find that the plea was unequivocal and the conviction was proper. 4. The Applicant does not dispute the legality of the sentence imposed. Rather, he prays for a review of the sentence on account of his remorse, his personal circumstances, and the nature of the offence. While these factors alone would not ordinarily justify interference with a lawful sentence, sentencing is an individualized process that requires the court to balance the gravity of the offence against the circumstances of the offender and the objectives of sentencing. 5. The record shows that the Applicant was found in possession of thirteen rolls of cannabis with an estimated street value of Kshs. 700. There is nothing on record to suggest that the narcotic drugs were intended for commercial trafficking or that the Applicant was involved in organized drug distribution. The quantity involved was relatively small. Further, the Applicant pleaded guilty, thereby saving judicial time and demonstrating acceptance of responsibility for his conduct. He has expressed remorse and states that he has learnt from his mistake. 6. The objectives of sentencing include punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community protection and denunciation. The appropriate sentence should therefore be proportionate to both the offence and the offender. A custodial sentence is justified for offences involving narcotic drugs. However, the period that the Applicant has already spent in custody has served the objectives of punishment and deterrence. Continued incarceration, in the circumstances of this case, would not significantly advance the interests of justice. 7. Having considered the circumstances of the offence, the Applicant's plea of guilty, his remorse, the relatively small quantity of cannabis involved, and the period already served in custody, I am persuaded that this is an appropriate case for this Court to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction in favour of the Applicant. I am satisfied that the ends of justice would be adequately served by reducing the custodial sentence to the period already served. 8. Accordingly, the application succeeds to the extent that the sentence imposed by the trial court is hereby set aside and substituted with a sentence equivalent to the period already served. 9. The Applicant shall be released forthwith unless he is otherwise lawfully held. Delivered at Kericho on 14th July 2026 CHELANGAT MUTAI JUDGE 14/7/2026 In the presence of Ms. Loice Osoro for the state Cosmas Langat – Applicant C/A Irene Chelangat