https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9303
The High Court declined to revise the sentence because the applicant failed to show any illegality, excessiveness, wrong principle, or material omission in the subordinate court's sentencing decision; the five-year term was lawful and proportionate to the offence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 9303 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: MARTIN KINOTI LIMBERE; Respondent: REPUBLIC
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E079 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Revision of Sentence After Conviction in Subordinate Court
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Judges
- ["DR Kavedza"]
- Legal Topics
- Revision of Sentence, Dealing in Endangered Wildlife Species, Judicial Discretion, Rehabilitation in Sentencing, Interference With Lawful Sentence
- 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
MARTIN KINOTI LIMBERE
Applicant
REPUBLIC
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Revision of Sentence After Conviction in Subordinate Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should revise the sentence imposed by the subordinate court
- 2 Whether rehabilitation and good conduct in custody justified reduction of a lawful sentence
- 3 Whether the sentence was illegal, manifestly excessive, based on a wrong principle, or ignored a material consideration
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court declined to revise the sentence because the applicant failed to show any illegality, excessiveness, wrong principle, or material omission in the subordinate court's sentencing decision; the five-year term was lawful and proportionate to the offence.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
- The sentence of five (5) years' imprisonment remains undisturbed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIBERA** **CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E079 OF 2026** MARTIN KINOTI LIMBERE………………………………………..APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………..APPLICANT **RULING** 1. Before the subordinate court, the Applicant was charged and convicted of dealing in endangered wildlife species contrary to section 92(2) as read with section 105(1)(b) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. Upon conviction, he was sentenced to five (5) years' imprisonment. 2. The Applicant has filed the present application seeking revision of sentence. He contends that he has undergone rehabilitation while in custody, has demonstrated good conduct, and that the period already served is sufficient punishment. On that basis, he urges the court to reduce or revise the sentence imposed. 3. I have considered the application, the grounds advanced in support, the record of the trial court and the applicable law. Sentence is a matter of judicial discretion, and an appellate or revision court will only interfere where the sentence is illegal, manifestly excessive, based on a wrong principle, or where the trial court overlooked a material consideration. The Applicant has not demonstrated that any of these circumstances exist. Rehabilitation, though a relevant sentencing objective, does not of itself constitute a sufficient basis for reviewing an otherwise lawful sentence. 4. The sentence imposed was within the prescribed law and proportionate to the gravity of the offence. I therefore find no basis to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion. 5. Accordingly, the application is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Orders accordingly. **Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 29th day of June 2026** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **D. KAVEDZA** **JUDGE**