https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11574
The court held that the sentence was lawful, appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of trafficking 9,280 grams of cocaine, and that the trial court had already taken the remand period into account under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code; therefore, there was no basis to revise or interfere with the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 11574 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lilian Nyatumba; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E119 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Sentence Revision Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed for lack of merit.
- Judges
- ["DR Kavedza"]
- Legal Topics
- Revision of Sentence, Section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code, Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs, Remand Custody Credit, Proportionality of Sentence, Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
- 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
Lilian Nyatumba
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Sentence Revision Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was any basis to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
- 2 Whether the trial court complied with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by considering time spent in remand custody.
- 3 Whether the sentence was lawful, appropriate and proportionate to the offence and circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the sentence was lawful, appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of trafficking 9,280 grams of cocaine, and that the trial court had already taken the remand period into account under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code; therefore, there was no basis to revise or interfere with the sentence.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed for lack of merit.
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
- No interference is made with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Nyatumba v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E119 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11574 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11574 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Miscellaneous Criminal Application E119 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J July 28, 2026 Between Lilian Nyatumba Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant 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, in JKIA Chief Magistrate's Court Criminal Case No. E099 of 2022. After a full trial, she was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 83,520,000 and, in default, to serve one year's imprisonment, in addition to thirty years' imprisonment. The default sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the custodial sentence. 2.The applicant has filed the present petition seeking revision of her sentence pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. She contends that the period spent in remand custody ought to be considered in computing her sentence. She further asserts that she has served a substantial portion of her sentence and is entitled to immediate release by reason of lawful remission. 3.I have considered the petition, the supporting affidavit, the trial court record and the applicable law. The issue for determination is whether there is any basis for this Court to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court. 4.In determining that issue, the Court must consider both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case. (See Marindany v Republic [2023] KECA 450 (KLR).) The applicant has maintained good discipline during her incarceration and has undertaken rehabilitation programmes. However, the trial court found that she was in possession of 9,280 grams of cocaine with a market value of Kshs. 27,840,000, a significant quantity warranting a severe sentence. 5.Having considered the mitigating and aggravating factors, I am satisfied that the sentence imposed was lawful, appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The record further demonstrates that the trial court expressly took into account the period the applicant had spent in remand custody in compliance with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6.Accordingly, I find no basis for interfering with the sentence. The application is dismissed for lack of merit. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 2026______________D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Applicant PresentMutuma for the RespondentKarimi Court Assistant.