https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/352

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/352

The offences arose from one transaction, the accused was a first offender, had spent the entire period in custody since arrest, showed remorse, had a positive pre-sentence and community report, and the complainant in count 3 had forgiven him. The court held that the custodial time already served was sufficient...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEMC 352 (KLR)
Parties
Prosecution: Republic; Accused: Emmanuel Bett Alias Avator
Court
Magistrate's Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Case E1383 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling After Plea, Conviction, Mitigation and Sentencing
Outcome
Accused pardoned on counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 and set at liberty; count 1 had earlier resulted in acquittal after withdrawal of the complaint.
Judges
["GW Kirugumi"]
Legal Topics
Cheating, Resisting Arrest, Assault on Police Officer, Malicious Damage to Property, Common Nuisance, Plea Change, Mitigation, Custodial Time as Punishment, Pardon Under Section 35 Penal Code
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Police Offences Cheating Resisting Arrest Assault on Police Officer Malicious Damage to Property Common Nuisance +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Prosecution

Emmanuel Bett Alias Avator

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Case / Ruling After Plea, Conviction, Mitigation and Sentencing

  1. 1 Whether the accused should be punished further for the counts to which he admitted guilt
  2. 2 Whether the period already spent in custody was sufficient punishment
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise discretion to pardon the accused under section 35 of the Penal Code

Ratio Decidendi

The offences arose from one transaction, the accused was a first offender, had spent the entire period in custody since arrest, showed remorse, had a positive pre-sentence and community report, and the complainant in count 3 had forgiven him. The court held that the custodial time already served was sufficient punishment and therefore pardoned the accused on counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 under section 35 of the Penal Code and ordered his release.

Court Disposition

Accused pardoned on counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 and set at liberty; count 1 had earlier resulted in acquittal after withdrawal of the complaint.

Orders

  • Count 1: Accused acquitted under section 204 of the Penal Code after complainant withdrew the complaint.
  • Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5: Accused pardoned under section 35 of the Penal Code.