Kawira v Republic (Criminal Revision E014 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9353 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Ruling)
The sentence imposed by the trial court was lawful and within the statutory range, so there was no error or irregularity warranting interference on revision; however, given the Applicant’s remorse, first-offender status, minor children, and partial service of sentence, the court exercised revisionary discretion to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 9353 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lucy Kawira; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E014 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Revision Application
- Outcome
- Application partly allowed; sentence revised.
- Judges
- ["RL Korir"]
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Guilty Plea, Discretion to Vary Sentence, Probation, Alcoholic Drinks Offences
- 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
Lucy Kawira
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Revision Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should interfere with the subordinate court sentence on revision.
- 2 Whether the trial court failed to consider mitigation.
- 3 Whether imprisonment without an option of fine was lawful and proportionate for the offence.
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence imposed by the trial court was lawful and within the statutory range, so there was no error or irregularity warranting interference on revision; however, given the Applicant’s remorse, first-offender status, minor children, and partial service of sentence, the court exercised revisionary discretion to convert the remaining custodial term to probation.
Court Disposition
Application partly allowed; sentence revised.
Orders
- The Applicant’s sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment without option of fine was not disturbed as to legality, but the balance of the sentence was converted to probation.
- The Applicant was released to serve the balance of her sentence on probation unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kawira v Republic (Criminal Revision E014 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9353 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9353 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Chuka Criminal Revision E014 of 2026 RL Korir, J June 25, 2026 Between Lucy Kawira Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.Lucy Kawira (Applicant) was charged with the offence of dealing with alcoholic drinks contrary to section 7(i) (b) as read with section 62 of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act 2010. 2.She pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted and sentenced to serve 9 months in prison without option of fine by hon. D. Ocharo on 15th April 2026. 3.The Applicant now seeks to have her sentence varied to either a fine or non-custodial sentence. 4.The Applicant stated in her supporting affidavit sworn on 20th April 2026 that she pleaded guilty before the trial court and offered mitigation that she was a mother of minor children, was remorseful and had no prior criminal record. She stated that the trial court did not consider her mitigation and that the prison sentence without an option of fine was harsh and excessive. She prayed that her sentence be revised to one of fine or a probationary sentence. 5.The Application was not opposed by the State. 6.I called for the trial record as required by law. This court’s revisionary jurisdiction is derived from section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides:-“362.The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court.” 7.In exercising the revisionary jurisdiction, the court is empowered to enhance, reduce or vary the sentence. Section 354 (3) (ii) & (iii) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides:-“(3)The court may then, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal or may –(ii)alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or, with or without altering the finding, reduce or increase the sentence; or(iii)with or without a reduction or increase and with or without altering the finding, alter the nature of the sentence.” 8.I have considered the Application. The Applicant was charged as stated above. There was nothing irregular about the proceedings or sentence. The penalty under section 62 of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act is a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand shillings or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both. 9.The trial court therefore was not in error when it sentenced the Applicant to 9 months imprisonment without option of a fine. The court was within its judicial discretion. 10.In this case however, the Applicant has expressed remorse and has stated that she had minor children who were suffering due to her incarceration. She was also a first offender. I find merit in her Application. 11.I have considered that the Applicant has served two months of her 9-month prison sentence. She is released to serve the balance of her sentence on probation unless otherwise held for any other lawful cause. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT CHUKA THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026...........................R. LAGAT - KORIRJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of Applicant, Ms Mutegi for the Applicant; Ms Gakumu for the Republic; Muriuki (Court Assistant.)