https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11500
The High Court declined to interfere with the sentence because the trial court had already considered remand custody under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the sentence was lawful, proportionate, and justified by the seriousness of trafficking 1,494.49 grams of cocaine worth Kshs. 5,977,960.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 11500 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Kihuga Gitonga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E070 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Revision Application Against Sentence After Conviction in the Trial Court
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Judges
- ["DR Kavedza"]
- Legal Topics
- Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs, Sentence Severity, Section 333(2) Criminal Procedure Code, First Offender Mitigation, Remand Custody Credit, Proportionality of Sentence
- 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
Peter Kihuga Gitonga
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Revision Application Against Sentence After Conviction in the Trial Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was any basis to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court
- 2 Whether the trial court complied with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by factoring in remand custody
- 3 Whether the sentence was lawful, appropriate and proportionate to the offence
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court declined to interfere with the sentence because the trial court had already considered remand custody under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the sentence was lawful, proportionate, and justified by the seriousness of trafficking 1,494.49 grams of cocaine worth Kshs. 5,977,960.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- The request for revision of sentence was rejected.
- No further interference with the sentence was ordered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Gitonga v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E070 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11500 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11500 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Miscellaneous Criminal Application E070 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J July 28, 2026 Between Peter Kihuga Gitonga Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant was charged with and convicted of the offence of trafficking in narcotic drugs contrary to section 4(a)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act, No. 4 of 1994, in JKIA Chief Magistrate's Court Criminal Case No. E099 of 2022. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 15,000,000 and, in default, to serve one year's imprisonment, in addition to eighteen years' imprisonment. The default sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the custodial sentence. 2.The applicant has filed the present application seeking revision of his sentence pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the supporting affidavit, the applicant prays that he be allowed to serve the remainder of his sentence on probation. 3.I have considered the application, the supporting affidavit, the trial court record and the applicable law. The issue for determination is whether there is any basis for this Court to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court. 4.In determining that issue, the Court must consider both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case. (See Marindany v Republic [2023] KECA 450 (KLR).) The mitigating factors are that the applicant is a first offender, has served a substantial portion of his sentence and has expressed remorse. However, the trial court found that he was in possession of 1,494.49 grams of cocaine with a market value of Kshs. 5,977,960, a significant quantity warranting a severe sentence. 5.Upon reviewing the record, I am satisfied that the sentence imposed was lawful, appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The record further shows that, at the time of sentencing, the trial court expressly took into account the period the applicant had spent in remand custody, thereby complying with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is therefore no basis for further revision of the sentence on that ground. 6.In the premises, the application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 2026D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Applicant PresentMutuma for the RespondentKarimi Court Assistant