https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12814

Mwangi v Republic (Criminal Revision E091 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12814 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 12814 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Criminal Revision E091 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J August 12, 2026 Between Faith Wangari Mwangi Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant was jointly charged with another person who is not before this Court with 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. She pleaded not guilty, and following a full trial, she was convicted and sentenced to serve ten (10) years’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of Kshs. 4,255,578, in default of which she was to serve twelve (12) months’ imprisonment. 2.Aggrieved by her conviction and sentence, the applicant lodged Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2023 challenging the decision of the trial court. On 30th September 2024, this Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety. 3.The applicant has now approached this Court by an application dated 27th November 2024 seeking a review of her sentence. She contends that she is the mother of a child with physical disabilities who requires special care and protection. She states that, during her incarceration, she has been separated from her children, who solely depend on her. She further contends that the period already served has achieved the rehabilitative purpose of her sentence, and that she is remorseful for the offence. She consequently urges the Court to substitute the custodial sentence with a non-custodial sentence. 4.I have considered the application, the record of the trial court and the applicable law. The power to review or interfere with a sentence is not exercised as a matter of course. A court will ordinarily interfere with a sentence only where it is unlawful, manifestly excessive or inadequate, based on a wrong principle, or where the trial court failed to take into account a material factor or took into account an irrelevant factor. The Applicant has not demonstrated any such error in the exercise of the trial court’s sentencing discretion. 5.I recognise that rehabilitation is an important objective of sentencing. However, the fact that an offender has been rehabilitated while serving a lawful sentence, or has demonstrated remorse, does not, without more, constitute a sufficient basis for disturbing that sentence. The Applicant has also relied on his family circumstances, including the alleged circumstances of his parents and the welfare of his children. While these matters are deserving of consideration, no documentary or other cogent evidence was placed before the Court to substantiate the assertions made regarding the condition of his parents or the welfare and circumstances of his children. The Court cannot act on unsubstantiated assertions alone. In any event, the Applicant has served less than half of the custodial term imposed. I therefore find no sufficient basis upon which to revisit or interfere with the sentence. 6.The sentence imposed by the trial court was within the prescribed statutory limits and was proportionate to the gravity of the offence. I find no misdirection, error of principle or other sufficient ground warranting interference with the sentence. 7.Accordingly, the application dated 27th November 2024 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026...................D. KAVEDZAJUDGE