https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8772

OKK v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E156 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8772 (KLR) (23 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8772 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Miscellaneous Criminal Application E156 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J June 23, 2026 Between OKK Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant was charged and convicted for the offence of Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm contrary to Section 251 of the Penal Code. He was detained at the President’s Pleasure and has been incarcerated for a period of approximately twelve (12) years. 2.The application before Court seeks, inter alia, a review of sentence and consideration of non-custodial intervention measures, including the taking into account of time spent in remand custody. The Court has further had regard to the supporting affidavit sworn by the Applicant’s wife, JNM, and the Probation Officer’s report on record. 3.The Applicant’s wife depones that she has been married to the Applicant for twenty-three years and that they have three children. She confirms the Applicant has been receiving psychiatric treatment while in custody and expresses willingness to support him upon release, including ensuring continued medication and medical follow-up. 4.The Probation Report indicates that while there is general family and community acceptance and a favourable prison assessment, there are significant concerns relating to reintegration. In particular, the report highlights uncertainty regarding immediate spousal cohabitation upon release, as well as potential psychological triggers linked to accommodation within the family homestead and the Applicant’s past mental health condition. 5.The report further notes that while the Applicant has shown clinical stability in custody, his reintegration may be affected by emotional stressors, expectations of immediate family reunification, and possible relapse risk if these expectations are not managed in a structured manner. It is also noted that there exists a need for continued psychiatric monitoring and psychosocial support to ensure sustained stability outside the custodial environment. 6.The Court is satisfied that the circumstances disclosed call for a structured pre-release intervention geared towards ensuring safe reintegration, continuity of care, and mitigation of relapse risks. Such intervention is necessary in the interests of both the Applicant and public safety, and to support an orderly transition from custody into the community. 7.In the premises, the Court directs that the Applicant shall undergo structured psychiatric evaluation and counselling sessions under the supervision of the prison psychiatric team and a qualified counselling psychologist. The exercise shall specifically address mental stability, coping mechanisms, family reintegration expectations, and risk management upon release. 8.The Prison authorities are further directed to facilitate and coordinate the said psychiatric and counselling sessions and ensure that a comprehensive report is prepared and filed in Court within thirty (30) days from the date hereof. The report shall include professional observations on the Applicant’s mental status, reintegration readiness, and any recommendations necessary for continued care.Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026. _____________ D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Applicant PresentMs. Otiya for the RespondentKarimi Court Assistant