[2025] KEHC 3209 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 3209 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had been convicted on his own plea of guilty for the offence of stealing under Section 268(1) as read with Section 275 of the Penal Code in two separate cases. The applicant had served part of his sentence and sought a non-custodial sentence. However, the probation officer's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 3209 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Geoffrey Sungura Ondieki; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyamira
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision E020 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review
Outcome
application for sentence revision dismissed; applicant to continue serving custodial sentence
Judges
WA Okwany
Legal Topics
Sentencing Review, Plea of Guilty, Stealing Offence, Penal Code Section 275
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Review Plea of Guilty Stealing Offence Penal Code Section 275

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Sungura Ondieki

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a non-custodial sentence after conviction on plea of guilty for stealing.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court should be revised in light of the probation officer's report.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had been convicted on his own plea of guilty for the offence of stealing under Section 268(1) as read with Section 275 of the Penal Code in two separate cases. The applicant had served part of his sentence and sought a non-custodial sentence. However, the probation officer's reports in both files did not recommend a non-custodial sentence. The court held that there was no sufficient basis to interfere with the custodial sentence imposed by the trial court. Consequently, the applicant was directed to continue serving the remainder of his sentences in custody.

Court Disposition

application for sentence revision dismissed; applicant to continue serving custodial sentence

Orders

  • The applicant shall continue to serve the remainder of his sentences in custody.