https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8183

Ebuka v Republic (Criminal Revision E054 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8183 (KLR) (9 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8183 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Criminal Revision E054 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J June 9, 2026 Between Ezewuru Evarustus Ebuka Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant filed the present application dated 20th April 2026 seeking sentence review. In the matter before the trial court, he was convicted for the offence of trafficking in narcotic drugs contrary to section 4 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act, No. 4 of 1994. The applicant was sentenced to serve five (5) years imprisonment. 2.The application is premised on the grounds on the face thereof and supported by an affidavit by the applicant. The averments made are that he is remorseful and prays for leniency. Since his incarceration, he has reformed. He prayed for a non-custodial sentence and repatriation to his country of origin. He prayed to be released. 3.The power of this court in its revisionary jurisdiction is founded under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) Laws of Kenya which provides that:The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court. 4.Article 165(6) of the Constitution provides that:The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body, or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court. 5.On the merits of the application, the applicant seeks a review of the sentence imposed by the trial court. The applicant’s application essentially seeks the exercise of this court’s discretion in sentencing. This court can only interfere with the exercise of sentencing discretion by the trial court if it determines that that discretion was wrongly exercised. 6.The Court of Appeal in Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another vs Republic Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2016 (unreported) held on Page 25 thus:“As what is challenged in this appeal regarding sentence is essentially the exercise of discretion, as a principle this Court will normally not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the court appealed from unless it is demonstrated that the court acted on wrong principle; ignored material factors; took into account irrelevant considerations; or on the whole that the sentence is manifestly excessive.” 7.In the present application, it was clear to the court that the applicant is serving a sentence made pursuant to a conviction. The provisions of section 4 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act, 1994 provide as follows:4. Penalty for trafficking in narcotic drugs, etc.Any person who trafficks in any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or any substance represented or held out by him to be a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance shall be guilty of an offence and liable —in respect of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance to a fine of one million shillings or three times the market value of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, whichever is the greater, and, in addition, to imprisonment for life; 8.The law provides for life imprisonment for the offence the applicant was charged with. Having in mind that sentencing is a matter for the discretion of the trial court, I find that the sentences imposed were justified. 9.The upshot of the foregoing analysis is that the application for sentence review is found to be lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed.It is ordered. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 ________________ D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Hamisi for the ApplicantMutuma for the RespondentKarimi Court Assistant.