[2024] KEHC 4714 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court had duly considered the applicant's mitigation, the period spent in pretrial custody, and the fact that the applicant was a first offender before passing sentence. The sentence imposed was lawful and proportionate to the offence of incest as provided under section 20(1) of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 4714 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: OM; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 98 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Incest Offence, Sentencing Principles, Pretrial Custody Credit, Mitigation, First Offender, Sentence Revision
- 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
OM
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court failed to consider the time spent in pretrial custody when sentencing the applicant.
- 2 Whether there is sufficient cause to revise the sentence imposed for the offence of incest.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court had duly considered the applicant's mitigation, the period spent in pretrial custody, and the fact that the applicant was a first offender before passing sentence. The sentence imposed was lawful and proportionate to the offence of incest as provided under section 20(1) of the Sexual Offences Act. There was no error, illegality, or impropriety in the sentence that would warrant revision under the court's revisionary jurisdiction. The application for revision was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
OM v Republic (Criminal Revision 98 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 4714 (KLR) (7 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 4714 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision 98 of 2024
DR Kavedza, J
May 7, 2024
Between
OM
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged and convicted for the offence of incest contrary to section 20 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. He was sentenced to serve ten (10) years imprisonment. He has filed the present application seeking revision of sentence.
2. The grounds raised are that the court failed to consider the time spent in pretrial custody. Since his incarceration, he has reformed. He is remorseful and has rehabilitated.
3. I have considered the application, the grounds in support and the applicable law. From the record of the trial court, the court considered the applicant’s mitigation, the time spent in remand custody and the fact that the applicant was a first offender before sentencing. Having considered the application in its totality. The sentence imposed was also legal in the circumstances of the case.
4. In my view I find no good cause or reason to revise the sentence imposed by the trial court. The application dismissed.
Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 7THDAY OF MAY 2024______________D. KAVEDZAJUDGE