[2021] KEHC 2565 (KLR)
The court held that there was no evidence that the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive or erroneous. The powers of the High Court in revision are limited and can only be exercised where there is a clear error or failure to consider relevant factors by the trial court. Since no such error was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 2565 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Francis Kimani Ngugi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E111 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Discretion, Criminal Revision, Energy Act Offences
- 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
Francis Kimani Ngugi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive or erroneous and warrants revision under the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the applicant is eligible for probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that there was no evidence that the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive or erroneous. The powers of the High Court in revision are limited and can only be exercised where there is a clear error or failure to consider relevant factors by the trial court. Since no such error was demonstrated, the application for revision was disallowed. The applicant was advised to file a formal appeal if he wished to challenge the sentence further.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is disallowed.
- The applicant may file a formal appeal if he so wishes.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E111 OF 2021.
FRANCIS KIMANI NGUGI............APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC....................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant was charged and convicted for the offence of stealing energy equipment contrary to section 169 (1) ,(3) of the Energy Act as well as vandalism of electrical apparatus contrary to section 169 (1),(b) of the said act. He was sentence to serve 5 years’ imprisonment.
2. He has applied for the revision of the said sentence based on the Provisions of Section 363 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as Article 165 (3) and (9) of the Constitution.
3. In his mitigation he stated that he was a first offender and remorseful and that he was a family man and that he wishes to be considered for probation under the Probation of Offenders Act No. 64 of the Laws of Kenya.
4. The learned state counsel opposed the application on the grounds that there was no error on the face of record and he should instead consider appealing the said judgement.
5. The court agrees with the respondent. Sentencing is always discretional. There is no evidence that the same was excessive or at all. This courts powers under Section 363 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code are clear and specific. The court will only interfere if the trial court failed to consider or take into account salient factors enumerated therein.
6. For now, the application for revision is disallowed. Let the applicant file a formal appeal if he so wishes.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK ANT NAKURU THIS 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021.
H K CHEMITEI.
JUDGE