[2023] KEHC 25458 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant did not demonstrate any illegality, impropriety, or irregularity in the sentence or proceedings before the trial court. The trial magistrate had considered the circumstances of the offence and the applicant's mitigation before imposing a five-year custodial sentence, which the High...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 25458 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Juma Ochieng; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 23 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Revisionary Jurisdiction, Assault Offences
- 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
Patrick Juma Ochieng
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal, improper, or irregular.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a non-custodial sentence for the remainder of his term.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant did not demonstrate any illegality, impropriety, or irregularity in the sentence or proceedings before the trial court. The trial magistrate had considered the circumstances of the offence and the applicant's mitigation before imposing a five-year custodial sentence, which the High Court deemed lawful and lenient given the facts. The applicant's remorse and plea for a non-custodial sentence did not constitute sufficient grounds for the court to interfere with the trial court's sentencing discretion. Accordingly, the application for revision was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Ochieng v Republic (Criminal Revision 23 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 25458 (KLR) (20 November 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 25458 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision 23 of 2023
DR Kavedza, J
November 20, 2023
Between
Patrick Juma Ochieng
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment for the offence of assault contrary to section 251 of the Penal Code.
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 and the mitigation by the applicant and subsequently sentenced him to five (5) years imprisonment. In my view, it is a lawful and very lenient sentence considering that the applicant was armed and used actual violence to inflict injuries upon the victim.
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 20THDAY OF NOVEMBER 2023. .....................D.KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Kibathi for the State.Applicant present (VTC).Ms. Joy/ Ms. Njuguna C/A.