Sanare v Republic (Criminal Revision E033 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 5269 (KLR) (23 April 2026) (Ruling)
The sentence imposed was legal and all relevant factors were considered by the trial court; no good cause exists to revise the sentence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 5269 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Nicholas Risa Sanare; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E033 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Conspiracy to Defraud, Sentencing, Revision of Sentence
- 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
Nicholas Risa Sanare
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's sentence should be revised to account for time spent in remand custody
- 2 Whether a non-custodial sentence should be imposed
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence imposed was legal and all relevant factors were considered by the trial court; no good cause exists to revise the sentence.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Application for revision of sentence is dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Sanare v Republic (Criminal Revision E033 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 5269 (KLR) (23 April 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 5269 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Criminal Revision E033 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J April 23, 2026 Between Nicholas Risa Sanare Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant was charged and convicted for the offence of conspiracy to defraud contrary to section 317 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve four years imprisonment. 2.He has filed the present application seeking revision of sentence. The grounds raised in support of the application are that he spent two weeks in remand custody which was not computed as part of his sentence. Since his incarceration, he has reformed. He is remorseful and has rehabilitated. He prayed for a non-custodial sentence. 3.I have considered the application, the grounds in support and the applicable law. From the record of the trial court, the court considered the applicant’s mitigation, the time spent in remand custody and the fact that the applicant was a first offender before sentencing. Having considered the application in its totality, the sentence imposed was also legal in the circumstances of the case. 4.In my view I find no good cause or reason to revise the sentence imposed by the trial court. The application dismissed.Orders accordingly RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2026...................D. KAVEDZAJUDGE