https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/13043

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MAKUENI** **HIGH COURT CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E002 OF 2026** **STEPHEN MBULI JUMA…………………………………………………….APPLICANT** **VS** **REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………..….RESPONDENT** ***(Being Revision Application Against the sentence of Hon. P.N.Gesora (CM) in CR. Case No.E418 of 2024 delivered on 8-1-2026 at Makueni Law Courts).*** **RULING** 1. The Applicant herein was charged with three counts. Count one he was charged with **Stealing of Energy Equipment Contrary to Section** **169 (1)(c) of the Energy Act No.1 of 2019** in that on diverse dates between 1-2-2024 and 1-7-2024, with others not before the court stole one prepaid meter valued at Kshs. 7,000/=. 2. For count two, he was charged with **Unauthorized Disconnection of Electrical Apparatus Contrary to Section 168(1)(d) of the Energy Act** in that on diverse dates between 1-2-2024 and 1-7-2024, with others not before the court, without lawful authority disconnected electricity from the main supply line. 3. Count three he was charged with the offence of **Willfully Interfering with Operation of the Apparatus of a Licencee Contrary to Section 168(4)(b) of the Energy Act No.1** in that on diverse dates between 1-2-2024 and 1-7-2024, with others not before the court, he willfully interfered with the operation of electricity apparatus at the customer meter box. 4. Having denied the charge, the case was fixed for trial. He however jumped bail and later re-arrested. He subsequently pleaded guilty and was convicted. He was sentenced to 1-year imprisonment. The court however did not indicate whether he pleaded guilty to all the three counts or one. The court did not also indicate whether the sentences were to run concurrently of consecutively. 5. Subsequently, he has now moved to this court vide a Notice of Motion dated 11-2-2026 seeking review of sentence on grounds that the court did not take into account the period spent in remand custody and that he is apologetic. 6. In response, prosecution had no objection and urged the court to exercise its discretion. 7. I have considered the application herein and the oral submissions by both parties. The main issue for determination is whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to determine the application herein and issue the orders sought. 8. The law governing revision in a criminal case is captured under **Section 362** and **364 of the Criminal Procedure Code which** provides as follows; **“362. Power of High Court to call for records** **The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose 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 any proceedings of any such subordinate court.** **364. Powers of High Court on revision** **(1) In the case of a proceeding in a subordinate court the record of which has been called for or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may—** **(a) in the case of a conviction, exercise any of the powers conferred on it as a court of appeal by sections 354, 357 and 358, and may enhance the sentence;** **(b) in the case of any other order other than an order of acquittal, alter or reverse the order.** **(c) in proceedings under Section 203 or 296(2) of the Panel Code (Cap. 63), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Cap. 59B), the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act (Cap. 245), the Prevention of Organized Crimes Act (Cap. 59), the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (Cap. 59A), the Sexual Offences Act (Cap. 63A) and the Counter-Trafficking in Persons Act (Cap. 61), where the subordinate court has granted bail to an accused person, and the Director of Public Prosecution has indicated his intention to apply for review of the order of the court, the order of the subordinate court may be stayed for a period not exceeding fourteen days pending the filing of the application for review.** **(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of an accused person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by an advocate in his own defence:** **Provided that this subsection shall not apply to an order made where a subordinate court has failed to pass a sentence which it was required to pass under the written law creating the offence concerned.** 1. **Where the sentence dealt with under this section has been passed by a subordinate court, the High Court shall not inflict a greater punishment for the offence which in the opinion of the High Court the accused has committed than might have been inflicted by the court which imposed the sentence.** **(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.** **(5) When an appeal lies from a finding, sentence or order, and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the insistence of the party who could have appealed.** 1. It is clear from the above provisions that an application for review of sentence can be entertained only for purposes of the court satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the proceedings. **Section 364(5)** **of the** **Criminal Procedure Code** is emphatic that no application for revision should be entertained where an appeal lies from a sentence or order. This position was espoused in **Criminal Revision Number 194 of 2023 Kisii High Court** in the case of **Barongo Sianyo Atembe vs Republic.** 2. In the instant case, the court is being asked to exercise mercy and therefore reduce the sentence. There is no application nor appeal filed challenging the legality or otherwise propriety of the sentence imposed. It is trite that sentencing is at the discretion of the court. An Appellate Court can only interfere if the same is illegal, excessive or imposed after taking into account wrong legal principles or taking into account irrelevant factors. See **Gacheru v Republic (Criminal Appeal 188 of 2000) (2021) KECA 94(KLR) (20 February 2002) (Judgment).** 3. The prayer that he be treated with leniency was the subject of mitigation before the trial court which fact was considered. 4. However, the Applicant has raised the issue of reduction of the sentence after considering **Section 333(2**) of the **Criminal Procedure Code**. 5. The proviso to **Section 333(2)** of the **Criminal Procedure Code** requires the court to take account of time spent in custody in sentencing. The said **Section** provides that: - **“Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63) every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.** **Provided that where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody (emphasis mine).”** 1. Court’s role under **Section 333(2)** of the **Criminal Procedure Code** has been explained in the **Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines** (under **Clauses 7.10** and **7.11**) thus: **“The provision to section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account the time already served in custody if the convicted person had been in custody during the trial. Failure to do so impacts on the overall period of detention which may result in an excessive punishment that is not proportional to the offence committed. In determining the period of imprisonment that should be served by an offender, the court must take into account the period in which the offender was held in custody during the trial.”** 1. Various superior courts have also emphasized that courts must give full effect to **Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code**. See the **Court of Appeal in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another vs. Republic [2018] eKLR. (See also Bethwel Wilson Kibor vs. Republic [2009] eKLR)**. 2. In the instant case, the Applicant was arrested on 10-7-2024 and remained in custody till 12-8-2024 when he was released on bail. He jumped bail on 26-11-2024 but got re-arrested on 12-8-2025. His bond was then cancelled until he was convicted on his plea of guilty and subsequently sentenced to one imprisonment on 8.1.2026. 3. As indicated above, the court did not indicate whether the conviction was in respect of the three counts and how the sentences were to run. Under **Article 50 of the Constitution**, an accused is entitled to the least provided sentence in law. In this case, I will take it that the sentences were to run concurrently as the offences were committed in a common transaction and or a chain of events. 4. From the record, the court did not take into account the period spent in remand custody which in this case translates to 5 months and 18 days. To that extent, the application succeeds to the effect that the prisons authorities in computing sentence should take into account the 5 months and 18 days spent in remand custody. Dated, signed and delivered in open court this **21st** day **August** **2026** **………………………………..** **J. N. ONYIEGO** **JUDGE**