[2025] KEHC 6366 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 6366 (KLR)

The court held that the discretion to impose sentence lies with the trial court, which must balance the interests of the accused, the victim, and the community. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact, or that the sentence was manifestly excessive or based on wrong principles. There was no compelling or substantial evidence to justify reviewing or substituting the custodial sentence with a non-custodial one. The application for sentence review was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence of 10 years imprisonment was upheld.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 6366 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Haggai Sande; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
15 May 2025
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E132 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Sentence Review Application; Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
RN Nyakundi
Legal Topics
Sentence Review, Rape Offence, Probation Orders, Sentencing Principles, Discretion of Trial Court
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentence Review Rape Offence Probation Orders Sentencing Principles Discretion of Trial Court

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haggai Sande

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Sentence Review Application; Ruling on Application for Sentence Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review of his custodial sentence under Article 50(2)(p)(q) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
  2. 2 Whether the remaining sentence should be substituted with a non-custodial sentence or probation.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in law or fact in sentencing the applicant to 10 years imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the discretion to impose sentence lies with the trial court, which must balance the interests of the accused, the victim, and the community. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact, or that the sentence was manifestly excessive or based on wrong principles. There was no compelling or substantial evidence to justify reviewing or substituting the custodial sentence with a non-custodial one. The application for sentence review was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence of 10 years imprisonment was upheld.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for sentence review is dismissed.
  • The sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed by the trial court is upheld.