Download PDF

Kenya Judgment

High Court · High Court at Garsen

Musyoka v Republic [2025] KEHC 10073 (KLR)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that the application for revision did not meet the statutory criteria under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as there was no challenge to the legality, correctness, or propriety of the original sentence. The applicant's request was based on personal circumstances and a favourable probation report, but the court's revisionary jurisdiction is not discretionary and cannot be exercised solely on compassionate or medical grounds. Therefore, the application for sentence revision to allow probation was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.

02

Material facts

Parties

Isaac Mutuku Musyoka

Appellant

Republic

Respondent Counsel: Ms Mkongo

Amounts and remedies

  • Original Sentence (years): 20
  • Sentence After Remission (years): 13.33
  • Remaining Sentence (years): 3

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that he was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for defilement, with a remaining period of about 3 years after remission. He sought to serve the remainder under probation, citing remorse, rehabilitation, a favourable prison report, and chronic illness (insulin-dependent diabetes) that is difficult to manage in prison.
Respondent
The respondent, through Ms Mkongo, did not file a substantive response but relied on the court's discretion and the law regarding revision of sentences.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code

    The High Court's power of revision is limited to correcting illegality, incorrectness, or impropriety of orders or judgments from subordinate courts.

  2. 02

    Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code

    The High Court may pass any sentence authorized by law.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that the application for revision did not meet the statutory criteria under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as there was no challenge to the legality, correctness, or propriety of the original sentence. The applicant's request was based on personal circumstances and a favourable probation report, but the court's revisionary jurisdiction is not discretionary and cannot be exercised solely on compassionate or medical grounds. Therefore, the application for sentence revision to allow probation was dismissed for lack of merit.

Obiter and limits

  • The court noted that the recommendation for probation was based on the applicant's medical condition and the strain on prison resources, but such factors alone do not justify revision under the law.

Court disposition

application dismissed

  • The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.

Source and reliance status

High Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court

Judgment

[2025] KEHC 10073 (KLR)

Musyoka v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E009 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 10073 (KLR) (11 July 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 10073 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Garsen

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E009 of 2025

JN Njagi, J

July 11, 2025

Between

Isaac Mutuku Musyoka

Appellant

and

Republic

Respondent

Ruling

1. The Applicant has filed an undated application seeking for revision of his sentence and for orders that he serves the remaining sentence under probation.

2. The application is brought under the provisions of Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure code which provides that:In the case of a proceeding in a subordinate court, record of which has been called for, or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may:a.In the case of any other order other than an order for acquittal, alter or reverse the order.

3. The applicant also relies on Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure code that provides that:The High Court may pass any sentence authorized by law.

4. The application was supported by the affidavit of the applicant in which he states that he was sentenced to serve 20 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. That with remission of part of the sentence he is due to serve 13 years and 4 months. That he was arrested on 28/10/2016 and the sentence ought to be completed on 28/10/2029. That he has about 3 years remaining. He thus seeks that the court orders that he serves the remaining period of 3 years under probation. He says that he regrets the offence committed and he is rehabilitated. That the prison administration has issued him with a favourable progressive report. That he suffers from diabetes and has to use insulin injection for 3 times in a day.

5. A Sentence Review Report was filed by the Principal Probation officer, Garsen, who recommended that the applicant serves the remaining sentence under probation order for a period of 24 months. The recommendation is chiefly based on the medical status of the Applicant that he suffers from insulin dependent diabetes mellitus which is a chronic illness that necessitates a strict regimen of insulin for immediate glucose control and lactus for basal insulin needs. That these drugs are expensive to get and are a strain to the prison services which lacks funding for chronic diseases.

6. I have considered the application. The same is seeking for revision of sentence. Revision is provided for under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure code which section gives the High Court supervisory powers over the Subordinate courts and in that regard the court can call for any file from the Subordinate courts so as to satisfy itself on the legality, correctness or propriety of any order or judgment made by such court. The application herein is not made under any of these grounds. No challenge is being made on the legality, correctness or propriety of the sentence of 20 years meted out on the applicant. Revision of an order or judgment is not a matter of discretion of the court but has to meet the criteria stated in Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application herein does not meet the criteria set out under the above stated section.

7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the application. The application is consequently dismissed.

DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT GARSEN THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025. J. N. NJAGIJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms Mkongo for the RespondentApplicant: Present virtually at GK prison, MalindiCourt Assistant – Ndonye

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 8(1) and 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.