Murunga v Republic (Criminal Revision E080 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7391 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Ruling)

Murunga v Republic (Criminal Revision E080 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7391 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7391 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldoret Criminal Revision E080 of 2025 RN Nyakundi, J May 29, 2026 Between James Murunga Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.Before this Court is an application dated 4th day of June 2025 seeking the following orders:a.That the petitioner is seeking for sentence review in accordance to Article 50(2)(p)(q) and Section 362 & 364 of the Constitution of Kenya.b.Spent.c.That the Applicant is requesting for only sentence review.d.That the Applicant will be seeking a declaration by the Court that his application has merits and qualifies to be heard. 2.The application is based on the following grounds:a.That the Applicant was charged, convicted and sentenced to 15 years for the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with 8(3) of the SOA No. 3 of 2006.b.That the Applicant is requesting for a sentence review.c.That the Applicant is a first offender and he is remorseful, repentant and God fearing.d.That this honorable Court has unlimited jurisdictions to hear and determine this application under the provisions of Article 165(3) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.e.That this honorable Court has powers to hear and determine infringement of fundamental rights and award remedies under the provisions of Section 216 & 389 of the CPC on mitigation and the values of sentencing as provided for in the sentencing policy guidelines 2016 paragraph 4.1. Decision 3.The sentence imposed upon the Applicant is provided for under Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act. This is the verdict the Applicant is aggrieved and he seeks discretion of this Court to be exercised so that it can be reduced to a lesser period of imprisonment. In Kenya the Court of appeal in Bernard Gacheru v Republic [2002] eKLR“It is now settled law, following several authorities by this Court and by the high Court, that sentence is a matter that rests in the discretion of the trial Court. Similarly, sentence must depend on the facts of each case. On appeal, the appellate Court will not easily interfere with sentence unless, the sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case, or that the trial Court overlooked some material factor, or took into account some wrong material, or acted on a wrong principle. Even if, the Appellate Court might itself not have passed that sentence, these alone are not sufficient grounds for interfering with the discretion of the trial Court on sentence unless, anyone of the matters already states is shown to exist.” 4.What the Court of appeal primarily sets out is that review of sentence by the Courts can only be effected if the Applicant demonstrates that the sentence is demonstrably unfit or if it was tainted by an error in principle. Generally, a sentence must comply with Section 8(3) of the SOA as read with Section 216 of the CPC. In my view there is no valid basis for this Court to disturb the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 5.As emphasized by the Court of appeal in the Bernard Gacheru case sentencing decisions are owed considerable deference from appellate Courts. An appellate Court is entitled to intervene only where the sentencing Judge has committed an error in principle that enacted the sentence or where the sentence is demonstrably unfit. Essentially errors in principle include an error of law, a failure to consider a relevant factor, or erroneous consideration of an aggravating or mitigating factor. Appellate Courts are to review sentencing reasons functionally and contextually. A functional review means assessing whether the reasons are sufficient in relation to the fundamental purposes that reasons serve, holding Judges accountable to the public, providing an intelligible result to the parties, and enabling effective appellate review. 6.In the instant case the sentencing Learned Magistrate reasons were sufficient and when the reasons are reviewed in context it is clear how he arrived at his factual findings in passing a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. The application for review of sentence is therefore dismissed under Section 382 of the CPC. It so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2026...............................R. NYAKUNDIJUDGEM/s Sidi Kirenge for the State