https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9331
The court declined to interfere with the sentence because it had been imposed by a court of equal jurisdiction after consideration of all relevant sentencing factors, the applicant had not shown any breach of fair trial rights or failure by the trial court, and the request for credit for pre-trial custody was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 9331 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Murithi Nthiga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E039 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Revision Application From Sentence
- Outcome
- Application declined
- Judges
- ["RL Korir"]
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Plea Agreement, Non Custodial Sentence, Pre Trial Custody, Review of Sentence by Court of Equal Jurisdiction
- 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 Murithi Nthiga
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Revision Application From Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should review or revise a sentence imposed by another High Court judge of equal and paralegal jurisdiction
- 2 Whether the applicant had shown any violation of fair trial rights or omission by the trial court warranting resentencing
- 3 Whether a non-custodial sentence was justified
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to interfere with the sentence because it had been imposed by a court of equal jurisdiction after consideration of all relevant sentencing factors, the applicant had not shown any breach of fair trial rights or failure by the trial court, and the request for credit for pre-trial custody was already satisfied by the trial court’s order that the sentence run from the date of pre-trial custody.
Court Disposition
Application declined
Orders
- The sentence imposed by the trial court remains in force.
- The applicant shall serve the sentence meted out by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Nthiga v Republic (Criminal Revision E039 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9331 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9331 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Chuka Criminal Revision E039 of 2025 RL Korir, J June 25, 2026 Between Peter Murithi Nthiga Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.Peter Murithi Nthiga (Applicant) was convicted of the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. He was initially charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. 2.The particulars of the offence were that on 22nd day of July, 2020 at Karandini Area Mwonge Sub-location, Nkiru South Sub-County within Tharaka Nithi County, unlawfully killed Esther Kina Njue. 3.Mid-way in the trial, the Applicant pleaded guilty upon plea agreement and was duly convicted of the lesser offence of manslaughter. He was sentenced to serve 20 years’ imprisonment. In sentencing the Applicant, the court observed that the death had resulted out of domestic violence, a vice which needs to be discouraged. The court went on to state further that the deceased did not deserve to die in the manner she did, and that the appropriate sentence was a deterrent custodial sentence. 4.The Applicant has now approached this court seeking to be resentenced and to be granted a non-custodial sentence. 5.The Application is opposed by the Respondent. In submissions dated 20th April 2026, the Respondent stated that the sentence was legal, just and fair and that the trial judge had considered all the relevant factors and arraigned at a proper sentence in the circumstances. 6.This court holds the view that it ought not to review the sentence which was meted out by a court of equal and paralegal jurisdiction. 7.The Applicant was tried and sentenced by the High Court. He has not demonstrated any violation of his fair trial rights or any omission by the trial court to warrant review. 8.With respect to the prayer for non-custodial sentence the court meted out the custodial sentence after considering the circumstances of the case and all relevant factors including the seriousness of the offence. 9.In sentencing the Applicant, the court ordered that the sentence run from date of pre-trial custody. His prayer for inclusion of the time spent in pre-trial custody was therefore spent. 10.The Application is declined. The Applicant shall serve the sentence meted by the trial court. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT CHUKA THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.R. LAGAT - KORIRJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of Applicant acting in person,Ms Gakumu for the Republic.Muriuki Court Assistant.