https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7199

Uriru v Republic (Criminal Revision E051 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7199 (KLR) (25 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7199 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Chuka Criminal Revision E051 of 2025 RL Korir, J May 25, 2026 Between Patrick Mucooka Uriru Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.Patrick Mucooka Uriru (Applicant) was charged, tried and convicted of the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act. He was sentenced to serve 20 years’ imprisonment by Hon. Mbayaki Wafula (P.M). 2.The Applicant subsequently appealed his conviction and sentence. In a judgement dated 23rd May, 2024 Gitari J. dismissed his appeal in its entirety. 3.The Applicant has now approached this court for revision of his sentence. In his Application dated 24th April, 2025, The Applicant stated that his conviction was upheld by this court. That he had further appealed to the Court of Appeal, but had withdrawn the appeal in order to pursue the present revision. 4.The Applicant stated that he was remorseful; a first offender; and a family man. That he craved a non -custodial sentence since he had already undertaken rehabilitative programs in prisons and was now suitable for a non-custodial sentence under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders’ Act Cap 64 Laws of Kenya. 5.In submissions dated 24th February 2026, the Applicant urged the court to consider the principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Policy Guidelines including proportionality, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community reintegration and alternatives to prison. The Applicant further urged that sexual offenders were not precluded from revision especially where an offender had served a substantial part of the lawful custodial sentence. 6.The Applicant further submitted that he had demonstrated exemplary behaviour after prison rehabilitation and was ready for community reintegration. He prayed that the court does order a current probation report which would shed light on the current circumstances. 7.The Respondent on the other hand opposed the Application. In submissions dated 7th April 2026, the Respondent stated that the Applicant had been properly charged, tried, convicted and sentenced under section 8(1) and 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act which provides:-1.A person who commits an act which causes penetration with a child is guilty of an offence termed defilement.(3)A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve and fifteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than twenty years.” 8.The Respondent urged that sentence meted on he Applicant was within the prescribed sentence under Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act. 9.This court’s revisionary jurisdiction is provided under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code:-362.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.” 10.In this case however, the Applicant’s sentence which was passed by the subordinate court had been upheld on appeal to this court. He cannot therefore come back to this court for a further reconsideration of his sentence. 11.The Applicant may well be rehabilitated now having spent 5 calendar years in prison. However, this court is bound by the supreme court decision in Republic Vs. Julius Kitsao Manyeso Petiton No. E013 of 2024 which affirmed that it was the duty of the trial court to impose the mandatory sentences as provided by law and that the appellate court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the sentence. 12.The Applicant is serving a lawful mandatory sentence. Further, the time he spent in pre-trial custody was taken into consideration by the trial court as it ordered that the sentence would be deemed to run from 17th November 2021being the date of plea and pre-trial custody. 13.The Application cannot be granted and is accordingly dismissed.Orders accordingly. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT CHUKA THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2026...........................R. LAGAT-KORIRJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of the Applicant acting in person, Ms Rukunga for the Respondent. Muriuki (Court Assistant).