[2025] KEHC 4640 (KLR)
The High Court, satisfied that the applicant was accorded due process, that mitigation was considered, and noting the absence of opposition from the prosecution, exercised its revisionary jurisdiction under Sections 362 and 364 of the Penal Code. The court found it appropriate to reduce the sentence, considering the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 4640 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Samuel Hinga Ngunyi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E059 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Sentence Review Ruling
- Outcome
- sentence_reduced_on_review
- Judges
- MA Odero
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Stealing Offence, False Information, Plea of Guilty, Penal Code 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
Samuel Hinga Ngunyi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Sentence Review Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was proper and should be reviewed.
- 2 Whether the applicant was accorded due process during trial and sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court, satisfied that the applicant was accorded due process, that mitigation was considered, and noting the absence of opposition from the prosecution, exercised its revisionary jurisdiction under Sections 362 and 364 of the Penal Code. The court found it appropriate to reduce the sentence, considering the applicant's guilty plea and the interests of justice. The sentence was thus reduced to a fine of Kshs. 500,000 in default four years imprisonment, effective from the date of sentence.
Court Disposition
sentence_reduced_on_review
Orders
- The sentence imposed upon the applicant is reduced to a fine of Kshs. 500,000 in default four years imprisonment from the date of sentence.
- This file is now closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Ngunyi v Republic (Criminal Case E059 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 4640 (KLR) (10 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 4640 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nyeri
Criminal Case E059 of 2025
MA Odero, J
April 10, 2025
Between
Samuel Hinga Ngunyi
Appellant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Applicant herein Samuel Hinga Ngunyi has sought to have the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court reviewed. The Applicant had been charged in the Lower Court with the offence of Stealing Contrary to Section 268(1) of the Penal Code. The Applicant faced a second count of Giving False Information to a person employed in the Public Service Contrary to Section 129 (a) of the Penal Code.
2. The Applicant pleaded guilty to the offence. Upon the facts being read out the Applicant maintained his plea of Guilty. The trial court then convicted the Applicant. After hearing mitigation the Applicant was sentenced on Count No. 1 to a fine of Kshs. 1,000,000/= in default to serve seven (7) years imprisonment from the date of arrest. On Count No. 2 the Applicant was sentenced to a fine of Kshs. 100,000/= in default to serve one (1) year imprisonment.
3. The ODPP represented by the learned state counsel do not oppose this application for review of sentence.
4. The Power of the High Court to review sentences is set out in Section 362 of the Penal Code, Cap 63 Laws of Kenya which provides 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 in any such subordinate court.”
5. The orders which the High Court may make upon revision are provided by Section 364 of the Penal Code.
6. I have considered the proceedings which took place in the lower court. I am satisfied that the trial was conducted as procedurally required. The Applicant was given an opportunity to mitigate and this mitigation was taken into account pending sentencing.
7. Given that there is no opposition to this application and given that the Applicant pleaded guilty to the charges thereby saving the court from conducting an unnecessary trial.
8. The Applicant was sentenced to serve a total of seven (7) years imprisonment. I allow this application for review and reduce the sentence imposed upon the Applicant to a fine of Kshs. 500,000 in default four (4) years imprisonment running from the date of sentence. It is so ordered. This file is now Closed.
DATED IN NYERI THIS 10THDAY OF APRIL 2025. MAUREEN A. ODEROJUDGE