https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11307

Wambua v Republic (Criminal Revision E028 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11307 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11307 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Malindi Criminal Revision E028 of 2026 M Thande, J July 24, 2026 Between Raymond David Wambua Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant was convicted in Malindi Criminal Case No. E407 of 2025 of the offence of breaking into a building and committing a felony contrary to Section 306(b) of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. 2.In his Application, the Applicant seeks that his sentence be reviewed to a reasonable fine. He contends that failing to sentence him to a fine is unconstitutional. He stated that he sole breadwinner of his wife and 4 children who have been suffering since he was incarcerated. 3.The Respondent opted not to file a response. 4.The Constitution has conferred upon this Court supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts. Article 165(6) and (7) provides as follows:(6)The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court.(7)For the purposes of clause (6), the High Court may call for the record of any proceedings before any subordinate court or person, body or authority referred to in clause (6), and may make any order or give any direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice 5.In exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, this Court is empowered to call for the record of proceedings in such subordinate courts, and make and give appropriate orders and directions as it deems necessary to ensure the fair administration of justice. 6.To give effect to this provision with regard to criminal matters, the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) stipulates the purpose of calling for the record of proceedings in subordinate courts by this Court, which is to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding or order. Section 362 of the CPC provides: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. 7.Where the Court finds after examining the record of proceedings before a subordinate court that the same are wanting in correctness or that there is illegality or impropriety of a finding, order or sentence, the Court may by dint of the revision powers conferred upon it by Section 364 of the CPC, enhance the sentence or alter or reverse the order except that of an acquittal. 8.The Applicant has not demonstrated that the sentence imposed upon him is illegal or that there was incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the proceedings leading to his sentence. In the premises the orders sought cannot be granted by this Court sitting as a revision court. 9.Section 347 of the CPC provides that a person convicted in a trial held by a subordinate court may appeal to the High Court. Our courts have repeatedly stated in many cases, that where a clear procedure for redress is prescribed by the Constitution or a statute, that procedure should be strictly followed. One such case is Speaker of the National Assembly v James Njenga Karume [1992] eKLR where the Court of Appeal stated:In our view, there is considerable merit in the submission that where there is a clear procedure for the redress of any particular grievance prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed. 10.A party who is aggrieved by any sentenced imposed upon him by a court ought to appeal against the same. Section 364(5) of the CPC is explicit that when an appeal lies from a finding, sentence or order, and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained on the application of the party who could have appealed. 11.Flowing from the above stated provisions of the law and the authority cited, the Applicant’s redress lies with the appellate court. It is in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction that this Court can examine the record and look at the sentence complained of and make a decision thereon. 12.In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Application is unmerited and the same is hereby dismissed. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN MALINDI THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY 2026.........................M. THANDEJUDGE