https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12532
The High Court found that the subordinate court followed the correct procedure, the applicant received a fair trial, and the original sentence was lawful under the Penal Code. However, exercising revisionary discretion, the court considered a fine to be sufficient in the circumstances and substituted the custodial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 12532 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Luka Murimi Mwangi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E017 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- High Court Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review/revision
- Outcome
- Application for review allowed; sentence revised.
- Judges
- ["MA Odero"]
- Legal Topics
- Revision of Sentence, Theft/stealing, Guilty Plea Sentencing, Discretionary Sentencing, Fair Trial Rights
- 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
Luka Murimi Mwangi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
High Court Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review/revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should revise the sentence imposed by the subordinate court
- 2 Whether the sentence of two years' imprisonment for stealing was lawful, proper, and proportionate
- 3 Whether a fine was a suitable alternative in the circumstances
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the subordinate court followed the correct procedure, the applicant received a fair trial, and the original sentence was lawful under the Penal Code. However, exercising revisionary discretion, the court considered a fine to be sufficient in the circumstances and substituted the custodial sentence with a fine.
Court Disposition
Application for review allowed; sentence revised.
Orders
- The sentence of two (2) years' imprisonment imposed by the trial court was set aside.
- The applicant was sentenced to a fine of Kshs. 20,000/= in default to serve two (2) years' imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA** **AT NYERI** **HIGH COURT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. E017 OF 2026** **LUKA MURIMI MWANGI……………………..………….APPLICANT** **-VERSUS-** **REPUBLIC………………………………………………..RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The applicant **LUKA MURIMI MWANGI** has filed this application seeking review of the sentence imposed upon him by the lower court. 2. The applicant had been arraigned in the Magistrates Court facing a charge of **STEALING CONTRARY TO SECITON 268(1) as read with SECTION 275 OF THE PENAL CODE**. The particulars of the charge were that **“On 25th day of January 2026 at around 1230 hrs at Ngararuma area in Mathira East Sub County within Nyeri County you stole dry coffee berries weighing 15kgs with a total value of Kshs. 10,000/= the property of “CHARLES MACHARIA GITHAIGA.”** 1. The applicant pleaded ‘**GUILTY’** to the charge. The facts were read out and the applicant maintained his plea of Guilty. He was then convicted as charged. Following his conviction the applicant was sentenced to serve **two (2) years** imprisonment. 2. The Applicant then filed this application seeking review of his sentence. The **ODPP** did not oppose the application for review. 3. The Power of the High Court to review sentences is set out in **Section 362** of the **Penal Code, Cap 63 Laws of Kenya** which provides as follows:- **“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 in any such subordinate court.”** 1. The orders which the High Court may make upon revision are provided by **Section 364** of the **Penal Code**. 2. I have carefully perused the record of the proceedings before the lower court. I am satisfied that the correct procedure was followed in all respects. The applicant was accorded all fair trial right as set out in **Article 50** of the **Constitution of Kenya 2010**. 3. I note that the applicant pleaded guilty saving judicial time. Following his conviction the applicant was granted an opportunity to mitigate before he was sentenced. 4. **Section 275** of the Penal Code provides that **“Any person who steals anything capable of being stolen is guilty of the felony termed theft and is liable, unless owing to the circumstances of the theft or the nature of the thing stolen some other punishment is provided to imprisonment for three years.”** 10. Therefore the sentence imposed on the applicant was lawful. However in my opinion a fine would have sufficed. I therefore allow this application for review. The sentence impose by the trial court is hereby set aside. In it space the applicant is sentenced to a fine of **Kshs.** **20,000/=** in default to serve **two (2) years imprisonment**. It is so ordered. **Dated in Nyeri this 31st day of July 2026.** **……………………….** **MAUREEN A. ODERO** **JUDGE**