[2023] KEHC 25529 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's grounds for revision were generalized and did not demonstrate any illegality, impropriety, irregularity, or misdirection in the sentence imposed by the trial court. The trial magistrate had considered all relevant factors, including mitigation and time spent in remand, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 25529 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ezekiel Mukonambi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 043 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Defilement Offence, Sentencing Principles, Revisionary Jurisdiction, Sexual Offences Act
- 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
Ezekiel Mukonambi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant for the offence of defilement was illegal, improper, or irregular.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a revision of his custodial sentence to a non-custodial sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's grounds for revision were generalized and did not demonstrate any illegality, impropriety, irregularity, or misdirection in the sentence imposed by the trial court. The trial magistrate had considered all relevant factors, including mitigation and time spent in remand, and imposed a lawful and lenient sentence of five years imprisonment, well below the statutory maximum of twenty years for the offence of defilement under section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act. The applicant's remorse and reformation, while relevant for mitigation, did not constitute grounds for revision under the court's limited jurisdiction. Accordingly, the application for revision...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Mukonambi v Republic (Criminal Revision 043 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 25529 (KLR) (20 November 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 25529 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision 043 of 2023
DR Kavedza, J
November 20, 2023
Between
Ezekiel Mukonambi
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged, convicted and sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment for the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006.
2. The applicant has now filed an undated Notice of Motion application seeking revision of his sentence. He avers that he is remorseful and prays for a non-custodial sentence for the remaining part of his sentence.
3. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant, Ezekiel Mukonambi, in which he reiterates the said grounds.
4. The application invokes the revisionary jurisdiction of this court which is donated by section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads 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 of any such subordinate court.
5. This court can only intervene to regularize the record to avoid any miscarriage of justice. The reasons advanced by the applicant is that he is now reformed and should get the benefit of a non -custodial sentence. He has however not argued that the sentence passed was illegal nor improper. Neither has he suggested that the proceedings were irregular nor in violation of his right or fundamental freedom.
6. I note that the trial magistrate considered the circumstance of the offence, the mitigation by the applicant, as well as the time he spent in remand and subsequently sentenced him to five (5) years imprisonment. In my view, it is a lawful and lenient sentence considering that the maximum sentence for the offence of defilement under section 8(3) is 20 years imprisonment.
7. The grounds raised by the applicant are generalized and do not suffice interference with the discretion of the trial court in sentencing or warrant upsetting the sentence imposed by the lower court.
8. The upshot of the above is that there was no impropriety, illegality, irregularity nor misdirection on the part of the trial court and thus the application fails.
It is so ordered.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023. _______________D.KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Kibathi for the State.Applicant present (VTC)