Lushola v Republic (Criminal Revision E051 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13063 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Ruling)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIBERA** **CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E051 OF 2026** HELLEN KAVETSA LUSHOLA.…..…………………………………..APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC………………………………………..………………RESPONDENT **RULING** 1. The applicant was jointly charged with another person who is not before this Court was charged 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 twelve (12) years’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of Kshs. 7 million, in default of which she was to serve twelve (12) months’ imprisonment. 2. Aggrieved by her conviction and sentence, the Applicant lodged Milimani Criminal Appeal No. E396 of 2021 challenging the trial court’s decision. The High Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety. 3. By an undated application, the Applicant now moves this Court for a review of her sentence. She submits that, accounting for statutory remission, she has a balance of one year and seven months. She highlights her family responsibilities as a mother of four, noting that one daughter is disabled and requires specialized care. She asserts that she is genuinely remorseful and fully rehabilitated, contending that the period served has satisfied the objective of rehabilitation. Consequently, she prays for the substitution of the unexpired custodial term with a non-custodial sentence. 4. I have considered the application, the trial record, and the governing statutory principles. The court’s jurisdiction to review or alter a lawful sentence is exercisable sparingly and not as a matter of course. Judicial interference is warranted only where a sentence is unlawful, manifestly excessive or inadequate, demonstrably founded on erroneous principles, or where the sentencing court either omitted a material considerations or relied upon extraneous matters. The Applicant has failed to establish any such exercise of improper discretion by the trial court. 5. Whilst rehabilitation remains a cardinal objective of sentencing, proof of reform or expression of remorse during the execution of a lawful sentence does not, per se, warrant judicial interference with a lawful sentence. 6. The Applicant has been in custody for approximately eight (8) years. I have considered the probation report on record, which recommends a non-custodial sentence, as well as the favourable report from the prison authorities. The prison report confirms that the Applicant has been rehabilitated during her incarceration and has undertaken various courses, demonstrating her commitment to reform and preparation for reintegration into society. 7. The reports further provide information on her conduct and progress while in custody, her family circumstances, the welfare of her children and her prospects of successful reintegration into the community. Having regard to the substantial period already served, her demonstrated rehabilitation, the courses undertaken, the favourable prison report and the recommendation for a non-custodial sentence, I am satisfied that sufficient grounds have been established for review of the sentence. 8. In the circumstances, and having regard to the objectives of sentencing, I am satisfied that continued incarceration would serve little additional rehabilitative purpose. A structured period of supervision in the community would better serve the interests of rehabilitation while safeguarding the interests of society. 9. Accordingly, the sentence imposed upon the Applicant is reviewed and substituted with a probation order for a period of eighteen (18) months, under the supervision of the Kibera Probation Officer. Orders accordingly, **Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 18th day of August 2026** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **D. KAVEDZA** **JUDGE**