[2025] KEHC 7441 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7441 (KLR)

The trial court erred by failing to offer the applicant the statutory option of a fine as provided under Section 152(1)(b) of the Children Act No.29 of 2022, and by not considering the applicant's status as a first offender and her guilty plea as mitigating factors. The High Court, exercising its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, found that these omissions rendered the sentence of three years imprisonment improper and excessive. The appropriate sentence should have been a fine of Kshs.100,000, with a default custodial term of 12 months. Since the applicant had already served 13 months, which exceeded the default term, the court ordered her...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7441 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Mercy Cherotich
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kericho
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 May 2025
Case Number
Criminal Revision E206 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision of Sentence
Outcome
sentence revised; applicant released
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Mitigating Factors, Child Neglect Offences, Revision Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Family and Children Sentencing Principles Mitigating Factors Child Neglect Offences Revision Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Respondent

Mercy Cherotich

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred by failing to offer the applicant the statutory option of a fine as provided by law.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors such as the applicant being a first offender and pleading guilty.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive and warranted interference by the High Court in revision.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court erred by failing to offer the applicant the statutory option of a fine as provided under Section 152(1)(b) of the Children Act No.29 of 2022, and by not considering the applicant's status as a first offender and her guilty plea as mitigating factors. The High Court, exercising its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, found that these omissions rendered the sentence of three years imprisonment improper and excessive. The appropriate sentence should have been a fine of Kshs.100,000, with a default custodial term of 12 months. Since the applicant had already served 13 months, which exceeded the default term, the court ordered her...

Court Disposition

sentence revised; applicant released

Orders

  • The sentence of three years imprisonment is set aside and substituted with a fine of Kshs.100,000 in default to serve 12 months imprisonment.
  • Having served 13 months, the applicant is to be set free forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.