[2024] KEHC 5312 (KLR)
The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate any legal or factual error, non-compliance with the law, or failure to consider relevant material by the sentencing magistrate. The mere fact of reformation or remorse, or being first-time offenders, does not in itself constitute a ground for revision under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 5312 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mark Kahari; Applicant: Daniel Kamau; Applicant: Julius Kimani; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application E114 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Criminal Revision
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- SM Mohochi
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Revision, Sentencing Discretion, Vandalism of Energy Equipment
- 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
Mark Kahari
Applicant
Daniel Kamau
Applicant
Julius Kimani
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Criminal Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have established a legal basis for revision of their custodial sentences under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the sentencing magistrate erred in law or fact or failed to consider relevant material in imposing the custodial sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate any legal or factual error, non-compliance with the law, or failure to consider relevant material by the sentencing magistrate. The mere fact of reformation or remorse, or being first-time offenders, does not in itself constitute a ground for revision under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized that sentencing is a discretionary function of the trial court and should not be disturbed unless clear grounds are established. As the applicants subjected the prosecution to a full trial and no error or miscarriage of justice was shown, the application for revision lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The applications for criminal revision are dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Kahari & 2 others v Republic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E114 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 5312 (KLR) (17 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 5312 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E114 of 2022
SM Mohochi, J
May 17, 2024
Between
Mark Kahari
1st Applicant
Daniel Kamau
2nd Applicant
Julius Kimani
3rd Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Applicants Julius Kimani, Mark Kahari and Daniel Kamau moved this Court by way of notices of motion invoking the Court’s special jurisdiction of criminal review as provided for under Sections 362, 363 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The Applicants are all convicts serving a 5 years’ imprisonment term having been found guilty for the offence of vandalism of energy equipment contrary to Section 161 (1) (b) of the Energy Act.
3. The Conviction and sentence took place in June 2021 after a three-year full trial.
4. The Applicants have served 12 months and now seek a non-custodial sentence, indicating they are now reformed, they have joined “Crime Si Poa” and generally appeal for the mercy of this Court.
Analysis and Determination. 5. This Court takes a dim view on applications for criminal revision that do not provide any basis for revision.
6. All Criminal revision under Section 362 must consider:i.Whether the decision was erroneous?ii.Whether the convicting and sentencing magistrate did not comply with any law?iii.If the decision is not based on a finding of fact not supported by evidence oriv.Whether the material by the parties was not considered.
7. The above principles would then enable this Court to disturb sentence imposed; sentencing is discretion that should rarely be interfered with.
8. While the Applicants argue that they have now seen the light, that they were first time offenders and deserve pity and mercy, they subjected the tax payer to a full trial from 2019 to 2021 and this might have informed the custodial sentence.
9. The Court finds the Applications without merit. The same are dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU ON THIS DAY OF 17TH DAY OF MAY 2024. .........................S. MOHOCHIJUDGE