https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7505

Muhoro v Republic (Criminal Revision E052 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7505 (KLR) (3 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7505 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Criminal Revision E052 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J June 3, 2026 Between Loise Wanjiru Muhoro Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant was charged and after a full trial convicted on three counts of the offence of obtaining money by false pretences contrary to section 313 of the Penal Code. She was sentenced to one-year imprisonment on each count to run consecutively and to reimburse the complainant Kshs. 1,343,000 in default to serve an additional one-year imprisonment. 2.She has filed the present application dated 20th April 2026 seeking revision of sentence. The grounds raised are that she is the sole breadwinner in her family who have suffered since his incarceration. She is remorseful for the offence committed. She has undergone rehabilitation. She urged the court to revise the sentence of the trial court to a non-custodial sentence. 3.I have considered the application, the grounds in support and the applicable law. 4.The Sentencing Policy Guidelines provide as follows: -“7.13Where the offence emanates from a single transaction the sentences should run concurrently. However, where the offences are committed in the course of multiple transactions and where there are multiple victims the sentences should run consecutively”. 5.The Court of Appeal has defined the phrase ‘same transaction rule’ in the case of Republic v Saidi Nsabuga S/O Juma & Another [1941] EACA and revisited it again in Nathan v Republic [1965] EA 777 where the court stated as follows: -“If a series of acts are so connected together by proximity of time, criminality or criminal intent, continuity of action and purpose, or by relation of cause and effect as to constitute one transaction, then the offences constituted by these series of acts are committed in the course of the same transaction.” 6.In the instant case, the charges in count I, II and III indicate that the offences therein were committed in a transaction involving the different complainants on the same date. The said offences were committed with the intention to defraud them and were connected in proximity of time and the criminal intent. In my view, the trial court ought to have ordered the sentences to run concurrently. The trial court indeed acted on wrong principles in that regard. 7.The upshot of the above analysis is that the application is allowed. The sentence imposed shall run concurrently.It is so ordered. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2026D. KAVEDZAJUDGE