https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9537
The application was struck out as spent because the applicant had already fully served the 18-month sentence and been released from custody, leaving no live issue for the court to determine.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 9537 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant/applicant: ZEDEKIAH MAYEKA NGARE; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E072 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Sentence Review Application Determined as Spent
- Outcome
- Application marked as spent; file closed.
- Judges
- ["DR Kavedza"]
- Legal Topics
- Stealing, Sentence Review, Mootness, Spent Application
- 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
ZEDEKIAH MAYEKA NGARE
Appellant/applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Sentence Review Application Determined as Spent
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence review application could be entertained after the applicant had completed serving the sentence
- 2 Whether any live issue remained for determination
Ratio Decidendi
The application was struck out as spent because the applicant had already fully served the 18-month sentence and been released from custody, leaving no live issue for the court to determine.
Court Disposition
Application marked as spent; file closed.
Orders
- No further order was made.
- The application is marked as spent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIBERA** **CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E072 OF 2026** ZEDEKIAH MAYEKA NGARE….......……………….APPELLANT/APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC…………………………..…………………………..….RESPONDENT **RULING** 1. The applicant was charged and after a full trial convicted for the offence of stealing contrary to section 268(1) as read with 275 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve eighteen (18) months imprisonment. 2. The applicant subsequently filed the present application seeking a review of his sentence. The application was admitted for hearing, and directions were issued fixing it for hearing on 6th July 2026. 3. When the matter came up on that date, the Court was informed that the applicant had since completed serving the sentence imposed by the trial court and had already been released from custody. Consequently, the application had been overtaken by events and no live issue remained for determination. 4. In the circumstances, there is no further order that this Court can properly make. The application is marked as spent, and the file is hereby closed. Orders accordingly. **Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 6th day of July 2025** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **D. KAVEDZA** **JUDGE**