https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7508

Muracha v Republic (Criminal Revision E210 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7508 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7508 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Mombasa Criminal Revision E210 of 2025 WM Kagendo., J May 15, 2026 Between Edward Atacha Muracha Applicant and The Republic Respondent (Revision of sentence emanating from Mombasa E288 of 2025) Ruling 1.The Applicant was charged and convicted with the offence of housebreaking contrary to Section 304(1)(b) and stealing contrary to Section 279(b) of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve ten (10) years imprisonment. He now seeks revision of the sentence pursuant to Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 50(2)(p) of the Constitution, praying that the custodial sentence be reviewed in favour of a non- custodial sentence. 2.The application is supported by affidavit evidence and a sentence review report prepared by Boytone Omondi dated 15/4/2026. The issue for determination is whether the application has merit and what orders this Court should make. Legal Framework 3.Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act provides as follows: “4. Power of court to permit conditional release of offenders…”(The Court sets out the provisions as previously cited regarding the discretion to place an offender on probation having regard to age, character, antecedents, circumstances of the offence, and prospects of rehabilitation.) 4.In Kimutai vs Republic (2024) KEHC 6871 (KLR), the Court held that in determining whether to impose a custodial or non-custodial sentence, the Court should consider:1.The gravity of the offence;2.The criminal history of the offender;3.The character of the offender and prospects of rehabilitation;4.Protection of the community; and5.The offender’s responsibility to third parties. 5.Further, in Republic vs Felix Madalitso Keke, Confirmation Appeal No. 404 of 2010 (unreported), the Court emphasized that sentencing should balance deterrence with rehabilitation and public interest, stating that:Sentences must fit the crime, the offender and the victim, and must also cohere with overall sentencing goals of justice, reformation, restoration and rehabilitation…” Analysis and Determination 6.In the instant case, the Applicant was convicted and sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment for the offence of housebreaking and stealing. 7.From the sentence review report, the Applicant demonstrates remorse and indicates that the period spent in custody has been rehabilitative. He has undergone self- reflection, acquired life skills training, and expresses commitment to lawful and responsible conduct upon reintegration into society. 8.The report further indicates that the Applicant is a first offender, a family man, and has dependants comprising his wife and two young children. It is also noted that his incarceration has adversely affected his family, who have since relocated due to financial hardship. 9.The Court has also considered that the Applicant has a stable home environment in Kisii where his parents reside and are willing to support his reintegration. The family environment is assessed as conducive to rehabilitation and supervision. 10.Taking into account the gravity of the offence, the Applicant’s personal circumstances, his remorse, his status as a first offender, and the prospects of rehabilitation, this Court is persuaded that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate in the circumstances. 11.The Court is satisfied that the objectives of sentencing; rehabilitation, reintegration, and proportionality, can be achieved without continued incarceration. Disposition 12,Accordingly, the application succeeds.The sentence of imprisonment is hereby reviewed to time already served. The Applicant is accordingly discharged from further custodial sentence.In place of the custodial sentence, the Applicant is hereby placed on a probation sentence for a period of two (2) years.During the probation period, the Applicant shall be subject to supervision by the Probation Officer, and monthly compliance 13.The Applicant is cautioned that any breach of the probation terms may result in review and reinstatement of custodial orders. Conclusion 14.The Court is satisfied that the Applicant is fit for reintegration into society and that a non-custodial sentence will serve the interests of justice, rehabilitation, and public interest.Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT MOMBASA THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY 2026.Ruling delivered through Microsoft Teams Online Platform.WENDY KAGENDO MICHENIJUDGEIn the presence of:The applicant in personMr. Sirima for the stateMS Bebora ct assistantTHE JUDICIARY OF KENYAHON. LADY JUSTICE WENDY MICHENIMOMBASA HIGH COURTHIGH COURT CRIMINALDATE:2026-05-19 21:43:38