https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9366
The court found that the applicant’s pre-trial custody had already been credited because the original sentencing court ordered the sentence to run from 28 February 2022, the date of remand. It also found that the trial court had considered the pre-sentencing report and properly rejected a non-custodial sentence....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 9366 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Mugao Njagi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E044 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application to Credit Pre Trial Custody and Vary Sentence
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Judges
- ["RL Korir"]
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Plea Agreement, Pre Trial Detention Credit, Non Custodial Sentence, Revision/variation of Sentence, Judicial Discretion in Sentencing
- 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
Stephen Mugao Njagi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application to Credit Pre Trial Custody and Vary Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant’s pre-trial custody had already been taken into account in the sentence.
- 2 Whether the sentence should be varied to a non-custodial sentence.
- 3 Whether the High Court could alter a sentence imposed after plea bargaining by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant’s pre-trial custody had already been credited because the original sentencing court ordered the sentence to run from 28 February 2022, the date of remand. It also found that the trial court had considered the pre-sentencing report and properly rejected a non-custodial sentence. Since sentencing remained within the trial court’s discretion and the applicant had plea-bargained, there was no basis for interference; the proper remedy lay in appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- The prayer for credit of pre-trial custody was declined as spent.
- The prayer for a non-custodial sentence was declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Njagi v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E044 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9366 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9366 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Chuka Miscellaneous Criminal Application E044 of 2025 RL Korir, J June 25, 2026 Between Stephen Mugao Njagi Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.Stephen Mugao Njagi (Applicant) was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge were that on the night of 4th and 5th February, 2022 at Mukui village Kathanje sub-location, Mutino location, IgambaNg’ombe Sub-County he unlawfully murdered Benson Nyaga Njagi. 2.The deceased is the Applicant’s elder brother. 3.Upon plea agreement, the Applicant was convicted on his own guilty plea of the lesser offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. 4.In the sentence issued on 3rd August 2022 Gitari J. who was the trial judge in the case stated:-“I have considered the fact that the accused entered a plea agreement with the State and pleaded guilty. This has saved court’s time. I have also noted the mitigation by the accused person which shows that the deceased had provoked him. I however note that the accused used excessive force against his own brother. I have also considered the pre-sentencing report which is not favourable for a non- custodial sentence. From the social inquiry report, a custodial sentence is called for to give the accused time to change and to keep him away from illicit drugs and alcohol. It will also give him time to rethink his life. I sentence the accused to twelve (12) years imprisonment. “ 5.The court further ordered that the sentence would run from 28th February 2022 when he was remanded in custody to await trial. 6.The Applicant filed the present Application seeking that the period he spent in pre-trial custody be taken into account and the sentence be reduced proportionately. He also prays that his sentence be varied into a non-custodial one. 7.In lengthy submissions, filed in support, the Applicant urged that he would serve an excessive sentence if his application was not allowed and his rights under the constitution would thus be violated. 8.The Respondents opposed the Application. In submissions dated 20th April 2026, the Respondents urged that the sentence was meted by a court of equal and competent jurisdiction which also ordered that the sentence run from the date of pre-trial custody. The Respondent further urged that the Applicant had not demonstrated any prejudice. 9.I have considered the Application with respect to the claim that the pre-trial custody was not taken into consideration, the record has spoken. The court ordered clearly that the sentence was to run from the date of 28th February 2022 when accused was remanded in custody to await trial. The prayer is therefore spent. 10.On the prayer for non-custodial sentence, it was also clear from the record that the court considered pre-sentencing report and came to the conclusion that the Applicant was not suitable for a non-custodial sentence and would benefit from custodial rehabilitation. 11.It is trite that sentencing is at the discretion of the trail court in this case having considered the circumstances of the case including all aggravating factors sentenced to serve 12 years’ imprisonment. 12.The Applicant having plea bargained can only appeal his sentence to the Court of Appeal. 13.The Application is dismissed. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT CHUKA THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026...........................R. LAGAT - KORIRJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of Applicant acting in person, Ms Rukunga for the Republic. Muriuki Court Assistant.