Osano v Republic (Criminal Revision E018 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10993 (KLR) (14 July 2026) (Ruling)

Osano v Republic (Criminal Revision E018 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10993 (KLR) (14 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10993 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kericho Criminal Revision E018 of 2026 JC Mutai, J July 14, 2026 Between Ronny Osano Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant has filed an undated Application seeking a review of sentence in Criminal Case No. E1767 of 2025 at Kericho, in which, on his own plea of guilty, was convicted of the offence of being in possession of narcotic drugs contrary to section 3(2)(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act No. 4 of 1994 on 8th September 2025. 2.The particulars are that the Applicant, on the 4th day of September 2025 at around 2230hrs at Kapsoit township, in Belgut Sub-County within Kericho County was found in possession of Narcotic Drugs namely cannabis (bhang) to with 8 rolls cigarette size all valued at Kshs. 800/= in contravention of the said Act. 3.In his Application for review the Applicant stated that he was repentant and remorseful for the offence and he is not appealing the decision but seeking for a sentence review or re-sentencing in view of the nature of minimum sentences in narcotic drugs. 4.He further states that the Court had competent jurisdiction to hear and determine his application under Article 165(3)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya.. He further stated that he is the sole bread winner at home and has learnt his lesson that crime does not pay. 5.The State opposed the Application as the sentence was lawful and the Applicant had the option of an appeal if he was dissatisfied by the sentence. Analysis and determination 6.I have considered the application, the record of the subordinate court, and the submissions by the State. The issue for determination is whether this Court should exercise its revisionary jurisdiction to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court. 7.The High Court derives its revisionary jurisdiction from Articles 165(3)(6) and (7) of the Constitution and Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In exercising that jurisdiction, the Court is required to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order of the subordinate court, as well as the regularity of the proceedings. Although revision is not intended to serve as a substitute for an appeal, the Court retains the power to interfere where the interests of justice so demand. 8.The record shows that the Applicant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, admitted the facts as read by the prosecution, and was accordingly convicted. There is no challenge to the conviction, and I find that the plea was unequivocal and the conviction was proper. 9.The Applicant does not dispute the legality of the sentence imposed. Rather, he prays for a review of the sentence on account of his remorse, his personal circumstances, and the nature of the offence. While these factors alone would not ordinarily justify interference with a lawful sentence, sentencing is an individualized process that requires the court to balance the gravity of the offence against the circumstances of the offender and the objectives of sentencing. 10.The record shows that the Applicant was found in possession of eight rolls of cannabis with an estimated value of Kshs. 800. There is nothing on record to suggest that the narcotic drugs were intended for commercial trafficking or that the Applicant was involved in organized drug distribution. The quantity involved was relatively small. Further, the Applicant pleaded guilty, thereby saving judicial time and demonstrating acceptance of responsibility for his conduct. He has expressed remorse and states that he has learnt from his mistake. 11.Sentencing is guided by the principles of proportionality, fairness and consistency. The punishment imposed should fit both the crime and the offender while advancing the objectives of sentencing, namely punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, community protection and denunciation of unlawful conduct. In the present case, while a custodial sentence was undoubtedly warranted, the sentence of eight years' imprisonment for possession of eight rolls of cannabis valued at Kshs. 800 was, in the circumstances of this case, manifestly excessive. Such a sentence does not bear a reasonable relationship to the gravity of the offence and the mitigating circumstances disclosed by the record. 12.The Applicant has now served a substantial period of imprisonment. Taking into account the quantity and value of the narcotic drug recovered, his unequivocal plea of guilty, his remorse, and the time already spent in custody, I am satisfied that the objectives of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation have been sufficiently met. The continued incarceration of the Applicant would serve no useful sentencing purpose. 13.Accordingly, I find merit in the application. I set aside the sentence of eight (8) years' imprisonment imposed in Kericho Chief Magistrate's Criminal Case No. E1767 of 2025 and substitute it with the period already served. The Applicant shall be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. DELIVERED AT KERICHO ON 14TH JULY 2026CHELANGAT MUTAIJUDGE14/7/2026In the presence ofMs. Loice Osoro for the stateRonny Osano - Applicant