Salim v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E006 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7673 (KLR) (22 May 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant had already pursued an unsuccessful appeal to the High Court and a second appeal to the Court of Appeal, where the sentence was upheld. In those circumstances, the High Court held that it could not review the life sentence merely because the applicant claimed rehabilitation; intervention would only be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 7673 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jamal Ahmed Salim; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E006 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Revision Application After Failed Appeal and Second Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Judges
- ["JN Njagi"]
- Legal Topics
- Revision of Sentence, Life Imprisonment, Indecent Act With a Child, Abuse of Process, Rehabilitation and Sentence Review, Equal Treatment and Fair Trial Rights
- 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
Jamal Ahmed Salim
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Revision Application After Failed Appeal and Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can revise a life sentence that was already upheld on appeal and second appeal.
- 2 Whether rehabilitation and completion of prison programmes justify sentence review.
- 3 Whether excluding long-term prisoners from sentence review violates Articles 27 and 50 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant had already pursued an unsuccessful appeal to the High Court and a second appeal to the Court of Appeal, where the sentence was upheld. In those circumstances, the High Court held that it could not review the life sentence merely because the applicant claimed rehabilitation; intervention would only be justified by new and compelling evidence, which was absent. The application was therefore without merit and an abuse of process.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion seeking revision of the life sentence was dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Salim v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E006 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7673 (KLR) (22 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7673 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Garsen Miscellaneous Criminal Application E006 of 2026 JN Njagi, J May 22, 2026 Between Jamal Ahmed Salim Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant herein has filed a Notice of Motion application seeking for revision of his sentence of life imprisonment for the offence of committing an indecent act with a child contrary to Section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act. No 3 of 2006. 2.The application is based on the grounds that he is now rehabilitated. He further seeks for a declaration that the exclusion of inmates serving long term imprisonment from benefiting from sentence review even after undergoing rehabilitation programs violates the constitutional rights to a fair trial and equal treatment under Article 27 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. 3.The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by the Applicant in which he states that he was sentenced by a Lamu Magistrate’s Court to serve life imprisonment for the above stated offence. That he made an appeal to the High Court at Garsen wherein the appeal was dismissed. That he made a second appeal to the Court of Appeal but the same was dismissed. 4.That having exhausted his right of appeal he has moved to this court seeking for review of the said sentence. 5.The Applicant says that he had been in custody for 8 years and has taken various vocational technical courses and religious training that has made him a responsible person. 6.I have considered the application. The Applicant made an appeal to the High Court and the same was unsuccessful. He made a second appeal to the Court of Appeal and the decision of the High Court was upheld. It would amount to an abuse of the process of the court for this court to review a sentence upheld by the Court of Appeal on grounds that the Applicant is fully reformed. The court can only intervene where there is new and compelling evidence for review. Consequently, I do not see any merit in the application. The application is not on that basis. 7.In view of the foregoing, the application is found to be without merit and is dismissed. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT GARSEN THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2026.J. N. NJAGIJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Oluoch for RespondentApplicant: Present virtually at GK Prison Malindi PrisonCourt Assistant – Ms. Rahma