[2023] KEHC 25528 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant did not demonstrate any illegality, impropriety, or irregularity in the sentence or proceedings. The trial magistrate considered the circumstances of the offence and the applicant's mitigation before imposing a one-year imprisonment, which is lawful and lenient given the statutory...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 25528 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Valerie Akinyi Orongo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 059 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, Cruelty to Children, Mitigation, Non Custodial Sentences
- 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
Valerie Akinyi Orongo
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was illegal, improper, or irregular.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a non-custodial sentence for the remaining term based on remorse and reformation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant did not demonstrate any illegality, impropriety, or irregularity in the sentence or proceedings. The trial magistrate considered the circumstances of the offence and the applicant's mitigation before imposing a one-year imprisonment, which is lawful and lenient given the statutory maximum of five years for cruelty to a child. The applicant's remorse and reformation, while relevant for mitigation, do not constitute grounds for revision under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, there was no basis for the High Court to interfere with the sentence imposed by the lower court.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
- The sentence of one year imprisonment imposed by the trial court is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Orongo v Republic (Criminal Revision 059 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 25528 (KLR) (20 November 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 25528 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision 059 of 2023
DR Kavedza, J
November 20, 2023
Between
Valerie Akinyi Orongo
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged, convicted and sentenced to one (1) year imprisonment for the offence of cruelty to a child contrary to section 127 (1)(a) of the Children Act No. 8 of 2001.
2. The applicant has now filed an undated Notice of Motion application seeking revision of her sentence. She avers that she is remorseful and prays for a non-custodial sentence for the remaining part of her sentence.
3. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant, Valerie Akinyi Orongo, in which she 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 she is now reformed and should get the benefit of a non -custodial sentence. She 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 her right or fundamental freedom.
6. I note that the trial magistrate considered the circumstance of the offence, the mitigation by the applicant and subsequently sentenced her to one (1) year imprisonment. In my view, it is a lawful and lenient sentence considering that the penalty for the offence of cruelty to a child is five (5) years imprisonment.
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 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023. ............................D.KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Kibathi for the State.Applicant present (VTC).Ms. Joy/ Ms. Njuguna C/A.