[2022] KEHC 16773 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had already exhausted his right of appeal and revision regarding the sentence imposed for arson and malicious damage to property. The sentence of three years imprisonment on each count had been previously reviewed and upheld by both the High Court and the appellate court. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 16773 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Otieno Oucho; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E118 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- application for sentence revision declined; file closed
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Revision, Arson, Malicious Damage to Property
- 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
Stephen Otieno Oucho
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should revise the sentence imposed on the applicant for arson and malicious damage to property.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to further review after previous appeal and revision were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had already exhausted his right of appeal and revision regarding the sentence imposed for arson and malicious damage to property. The sentence of three years imprisonment on each count had been previously reviewed and upheld by both the High Court and the appellate court. The court held that it would not entertain further review of the sentence, especially considering the seriousness of the offences and the value of the property destroyed. The court emphasized the need for the applicant to take responsibility for his actions and to be reformed before rejoining society. Accordingly, the application for further sentence revision was declined and the file...
Court Disposition
application for sentence revision declined; file closed
Orders
- The application for further sentence revision is declined.
- The file is closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Oucho v Republic (Criminal Revision E118 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 16773 (KLR) (21 December 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16773 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Siaya
Criminal Revision E118 of 2022
RE Aburili, J
December 21, 2022
Between
Stephen Otieno Oucho
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being an Application for sentence revision in Bondo PM’s Criminal Case No. 966 of 2018 delivered by Hon. E.N. Wasike, Senior Resident Magistrate on 14. 3.2019 AND in Siaya HC Criminal Revision No. E043 of 2021 and in Kisumu HCCRA No. 12/2019)
Ruling
1. This court vide Criminal Revision E043 of 2021 declined to revise the three years imprisonment imposed on him on each of the two counts as he appealed and the court vide Kisumu HCCRA 12/2019 dismissed the appeal both against sentence and conviction. The convict having destroyed the complainant’s property to wit, a dwelling house with a high value of kshs 300,000, must be ready to pay for it or be reformed before he can be allowed back into the society.
2. I decline to entertain any further review of the sentence which was lenient for the offences of arson and malicious damage to property.
3. File is closed.
4. I so order.
Dated, signed and delivered at Siaya, this 21stDay of December, 2022R.E. ABURILIJUDGE