[2024] KEHC 15052 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, being a first offender who pleaded guilty and demonstrated remorse, had already served a sufficient period in custody to meet the objectives of sentencing. The remaining period of the custodial sentence was not significant, and the interests of justice would be served by reviewing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 15052 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Ngigi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E449 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- sentence reviewed to period already served; applicant released unless otherwise lawfully held
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Plea of Guilty, Non Custodial Sentence, Mitigation, First Offender
- 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
Stephen Ngigi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court should be reviewed in light of the applicant's plea of guilty and mitigating circumstances.
- 2 Whether the applicant qualifies for a non-custodial sentence as a first offender.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, being a first offender who pleaded guilty and demonstrated remorse, had already served a sufficient period in custody to meet the objectives of sentencing. The remaining period of the custodial sentence was not significant, and the interests of justice would be served by reviewing the sentence to the period already served. The court emphasized the importance of considering the offender's youth, capacity for reform, and the principle that imprisonment should be avoided for misdemeanours where possible. Accordingly, the sentence was reviewed to time served, and the applicant was ordered to be released unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
sentence reviewed to period already served; applicant released unless otherwise lawfully held
Orders
- The sentence imposed by the trial court is reviewed to the period already served in custody.
- The applicant is at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Ngigi v Republic (Criminal Revision E449 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 15052 (KLR) (29 November 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 15052 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Criminal Revision E449 of 2024
RN Nyakundi, J
November 29, 2024
Between
Stephen Ngigi
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
Mr. Mugun for the state 1. The applicant was charged with the offence of stealing contrary to section 268 as read with section 275 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence are that on 26th May, 2024 at around 1045 hours at Kisumu ndogo area, Langas estate in Kapseret Sub-county within Uasin Gishu County with others not before court stole a mobile phone of male Tecno Spark 20 valued at Kshs. 25,000/= the property of Samson Odoyo Oduya.
2. The applicant pleaded guilty to the offence and as a consequence, he was convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to a fine of Kshs. 30,000/= and in default to serve 6 months imprisonment.
3. The applicant has approached this court pursuant to sections 357,362,364& 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code as construed with Article 50(2) (p) & (q) as conjunctively read with Article 50(6)(a) &(b) of the Constitution.
4. The applicant seeks review of the sentence imposed by the trial court. The applicant wishes to be considered for a non-custodial sentence. I have reviewed the record and the mitigating factors advanced by the applicant at the trial court.
5. In determining whether to impose a custodial or non-custodial sentence, the court is required to take into account the following factors: -a)Gravity of the offence: - sentence of imprisonment should be avoided for misdemeanour.b)Criminal history of the offender. Taking into account the seriousness of the offences, first offenders should be considered for non-custodial sentence.c)Character of the offender: - non-custodial sentence are best suited for offenders who are already remorseful and receptive to rehabilitative measures.d)Protection of the community: - where the offender is likely to pose a threat to the community.e)Offender’s responsibility to third parties: - where there are people depending on the offender.
6. Given the Applicant's youth and demonstrable capacity for reform, I believe the interests of justice already been served through the custodial sentence he has served so far. The period remaining is not considerable as such and I share the view that in considering the objectives of sentencing in their totality, the sentence is hereby reviewed to the period already served in custody.
7. The applicant is therefore at liberty unless and otherwise lawfully held.
8. It is so ordered.
SIGNED, DATE AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024. …………………………R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE