[2025] KEHC 6265 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence imposed on the applicant was legal, proper, regular, and correct in law. The applicant failed to demonstrate remorse or any compelling reason for the court to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction. The applicant's attitude indicated a lack of appreciation for the criminality of her...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 6265 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: SN; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E422 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- AM Muteti
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Revision, Child Cruelty Offence, Plea of Guilty, Probation of Offenders, Non Custodial Measures
- 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
SN
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant for subjecting a child to cruel punishment was legal, proper, and regular.
- 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated remorse or grounds for the court to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction under sections 362-365 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 3 Whether the circumstances justified a non-custodial sentence or revision of the custodial sentence imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence imposed on the applicant was legal, proper, regular, and correct in law. The applicant failed to demonstrate remorse or any compelling reason for the court to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction. The applicant's attitude indicated a lack of appreciation for the criminality of her conduct, and the court agreed with the prosecution that the custodial sentence was necessary to deter future similar conduct. Accordingly, the court declined to interfere with the sentence and dismissed the application for revision.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
- The applicant shall serve the full sentence as imposed by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
SN v Director of Public Prosecutions (Miscellaneous Application E422 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 6265 (KLR) (Crim) (6 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 6265 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Miscellaneous Application E422 of 2024
AM Muteti, J
May 6, 2025
N THE MATTER OF; ARTICLES 2(6) 22(1) , 23 (1), (3) (D) ,24 (1) (D), 2, (B),(C), (20) (1) (2) (3) (A),27 47,48,51 (1),159 (2) (A) ,165 (3) (B), (D) (I) (II),258 (1) 259(1) (A), (B) & (C) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF ;4 (1) AND (2) OF THE PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT CAP 64 LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF; CONSIDERATION OF UNITED NATIONS MINIMUM RULES OF NON CUSTODIAL MEASURES (THE TOKYO RULES) PARAGRAPH 2. AND IN THE MATTER OF CR CASE NO. E060 OF 2024 AT CHILDREN’S COURT AT MILIMANI
Between
SN
Applicant
and
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
(ARISING FROM THE CRIMINAL’S CASE E060 OF 2024 AT CHILDREN’S COURT AT MILLIMANI)
Ruling
1. The applicant seeks review of sentence under section 362-365 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The applicant was charged with the offence of Subjecting a Child to Cruel Punishment Under Section 152(1) (a) of the Children’s Act No. 29 of 2022.
3. The applicant was sentenced to serve 3 years imprisonment on a plea of guilty.
4. The applicant appeared before this court and informed the court the child she was accused of handling with cruelty had wronged her so she decided to punish the child.
5. The child was said to have been 8 years.
6. I do not think that from the submissions of the appellant that she has realized that what she did was of a criminal nature and she deserved punishment. The attitude of the applicant is that of a person who does not deserve the mercy of this court.
7. In any event the sentence imposed against her was legal, proper, regular and correct in law thus this court cannot in the circumstances exercise its power of revision in her favor.
8. The applicant did not appear remorseful and I agree with counsel for the prosecution that she deserves to serve the full time to deter her from such conduct in the future.
9. Consequently, the application is dismissed.
10. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 6TH DAY OF MAY 2025. A. M. MUTETIJUDGE