https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10042

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ISIOLO** **CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E028 OF 2026** **SAUL MJOMBA MWENGECHO ……………………………….. APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **REPUBLIC ………………………………………………………………………. RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The Applicant herein was charged, at the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Isiolo with various counts relating to making a document without authority contrary to Section 357(a) of the Penal Code. 2. He was convicted, and on 6th May 2022, he was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment across the ten counts, which cumulating to a jail term of 10 ½ years. 3. He has moved to this court by way of the Notice of Motion dated 11th February 2026, seeking a revision of the sentence pursuant to Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. The Applicant has sought orders as follows; 5. *That this honorable court be pleased to exercise judicial authority, consider the mitigating factors and grant the Applicant the prayers sought* 6. *That this honorable court be pleased to review the sentence downwards or prefer a non-custodial sentence in the below stated case* 7. *That the Applicant be heard on priority basis* **The Applicant’s Case** 1. The Applicant states that he has been in custody since 12th August 2021 and is deeply remorseful for his actions. He contends that as a first offender with no previous record of crime, the current sentence is excessive. 2. He further states that during his incarceration at Meru Main Prison, he has dedicated himself to rehabilitation; that he has acquired a Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (2024), multiple diplomas and certificates in Biblical Studies from various institutions. He prays to have his sentence reviewed downwards or to be allowed to serve the remainder of his term under Community Service Order (CSO). 3. He has submitted a recommendation letter from the **Officer In-Charge of Meru Main Prison** dated 17th March 2026. The prison authorities state that the Applicant has related well with staff and inmates; has maintained outstanding discipline while serving as a cleaner in the prison dispensary. The report emphasizes that he has fully embraced the rehabilitation programs offered. 4. The Application is unopposed. **Determination.** 1. The only issue for determination in this Application is whether the Applicant is entitled to the prayers sought. 2. This court’s jurisdiction in an application for revision is donated by Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 362, the High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before a subordinate court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the *correctness, legality* or *propriety* of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings. 3. The revisionary jurisdiction is also supervisory in nature and is not intended to substitute the appellate jurisdiction of the court merely because another view of the matter is possible. 4. It is settled law that sentencing is a matter resting within the discretion of the trial court. An appellate or revision court will therefore only interfere where it is demonstrated that the trial court acted on a wrong principle, overlooked a material factor, took into account an irrelevant consideration, imposed an illegal sentence or where the sentence is manifestly harsh or excessive in the circumstances of the case. This principle was authoritatively stated in ***Ogolla s/o Owuor v Republic* [1954] *EACA 270*** and has consistently been reiterated in numerous subsequent decisions of the superior courts. 5. The record shows that the Applicant was convicted of ten counts of making a document without authority contrary to Section 357(a) of the Penal Code and was sentenced on 6th May 2022 to various custodial terms whose cumulative effect was a sentence of ten and a half (10½) years’ imprisonment. 6. The Applicant has not challenged the legality of the individual sentences imposed. Rather, he urges this court to review the sentence on account of his status as a first offender, his remorse, the period already served and the considerable rehabilitation he has undergone while in prison. 7. The court has considered the mitigation advanced by the Applicant together with the positive recommendation by the Officer-in-Charge, Meru Main Prison. However, rehabilitation, commendable as it is, does not by itself render an otherwise lawful sentence illegal, improper or incorrect. 8. The Applicant has also urged the court to substitute the remainder of his custodial sentence with a non-custodial sentence under the Community Service Orders Act. While the Community Service Orders Act empowers a trial court to impose community service in appropriate circumstances, the revisionary jurisdiction of this court cannot ordinarily be invoked to convert a lawful custodial sentence into a non-custodial sentence merely because an offender has demonstrated rehabilitation while serving sentence. 9. I have looked at the sentencing proceedings of the trial court, and I find no indication that the trial court acted on a wrong principle or imposed a sentence outside the limits prescribed by law. The Applicant has neither demonstrated any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the sentences imposed to warrant any interference by this court. 10. In the circumstances the Application lacks merit, and it is hereby disallowed. Dated signed and delivered at Isiolo, this 9th day of July 2026. S. Chirchir. Judge. In the presence of: Barako Huka- Court Assistant. The Applicant Mr. Majale for the Respondent.