https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10324

Gimadu v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E005 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10324 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10324 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kiambu Miscellaneous Criminal Application E005 of 2025 B Mwamuye, J June 30, 2026 Between Paul Gimadu Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.Before the Court is an undated Notice of Motion Application by which the Applicant, PAUl Gimadu, is seeking the Application of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the sentence of 25 years’ incarceration imposed by the Court of Appeal on 26th April, 2024; which the Court of Appeal at Paragraph 13 of its Judgment dated and delivered on 26th April, 2026 was to “run from the date the Appellant was first sentenced.” 2.The Court of Appeal, interfered with the sentence of life imprisonment confirmed by the High Court { Kimaru, J ( as he then was)} and originally imposed by the Principal Magistrates’ Court at Githunguri with respect to a charge of Defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read together with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act by that Judgment dated and delivered on 26th April, 2026 in Nairobi COA Criminal Appeal No. E037 of 2023 [2024] KECA 422 (KLR). 3.The gist of the Applicant’s argument is that the Court of Appeal erred in not applying Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and factoring in the time spent in pre-sentence custody in their decision. 4.The Prosecution does not oppose the Application, and indeed supports the factual basis that the Court of Appeal did not apply Section 333(2) when it ought to have done so. 5.The instant Application expressly invites the High Court to state that the Court of Appeal acted in error in its Judgment dated and delivered on 26th April, 2024. The High Court is constitutionally precluded from reviewing the relative merits or demerits of the decisions of other superior courts by virtue of Article 165(6) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the constitutionally provided hierarchy of courts prohibits the High Court from entertaining grievances based on the appellate decisions of the courts that sit above it. 6.Indeed, the revisionary powers the Applicant has sought to invoke are expressly limited to the High Court revising the decisions of a subordinate court. Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the heart of the statutory power of revision, could not be clearer on this. 7.Perhaps aware of this, the Applicant has attempted to dress up his Application as a revision not of the Court of Appeal’s Judgment but rather the initial trial decision of the Subordinate Court. This too fails as:a.The decision of the Subordinate Court was already subject to examination by the High Court sitting on appeal in Nairobi HCCRA No. 322 of 2012 and is thus res judicata even if it were the decision sought to be reviewed, which it is not;b.The decisions of the Subordinate Court and the High Court in imposing and affirming the sentence of life imprisonment respectively were not the final word on the matter, with the same being the Court of Appeal decision in Nairobi COA Criminal Appeal No. E037 of 2023 [2024] KECA 422 (KLR), which would then make the Court of Appeal’s decision the true subject of review; andc.The Applicant has not disclosed to this Court whether a similar effort was laid before the Court of Appeal inviting that venerable court to correct what the Applicant perceives as an error. 8.There was no Section 333(2) computation undertaken by either the Subordinate Court or the High Court sitting on appeal as such a computation is impossible and/or irrelevant in instances of life sentence. The pre-sentencing period is immaterial in a life sentence, as there is no determinative term from which that period can be reduced from. Section 333(2) only came into play when the Court of Appeal set-aside the indeterminate term of life imprisonment that was imposed by the Subordinate Court and affirmed by the High Court on appeal; and replaced the same with a 25-year carceral term which the Court of Appeal stated would run from the date of sentencing. 9.Whether the Court of Appeal ought to have stated otherwise or ought to have undertaken a Section 333(2) computation is not within the province of this Court. Litigation is not just about asking the right questions; it is also about asking those questions in the proper court; a court with jurisdiction to answer the questions. This Court does not have the requisite jurisdiction to inquire into the relative merits or demerits of the computation of the 25-year sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal or its operational date. 10.For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant’s undated Notice of Motion Application seeking revision is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. File closed accordingly. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU ON THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2026……………………………………………………………BAHATI MWAMUYE MBSJUDGEIn the presence of:Paul Gimadu present at Naivasha MaximumMs. Muriu for the RespondentCourt Assistant - Martin