https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7502
The applicant failed to show any illegality, irregularity, or misdirection in the trial court’s sentencing. The sentence was lawful and proportionate, and rehabilitation alone did not justify revision or interference.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 7502 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: VALENTINE KWAMBOKA MAKEI; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E053 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review/revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Judges
- ["DR Kavedza"]
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Sentence Review, Rehabilitation, Community Service Order, Probation Supervision, Interference With Lawful Sentence
- 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
VALENTINE KWAMBOKA MAKEI
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review/revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should interfere with a sentence of fifteen years imprisonment imposed after conviction for manslaughter.
- 2 Whether rehabilitation alone is sufficient ground to review or vary a lawful sentence on revision.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to show any illegality, irregularity, or misdirection in the trial court’s sentencing. The sentence was lawful and proportionate, and rehabilitation alone did not justify revision or interference.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The sentence of fifteen (15) years imprisonment remains undisturbed.
- No revision or interference with the sentence was granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIBERA** **CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E053 OF 2026** VALENTINE KWAMBOKA MAKEI….………..………………APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC…………………………………………..……..…...RESPONDENT **RULING.** 1. The applicant was charged and after a full trial convicted for the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with 205 of the Penal Code. She was sentenced to serve fifteen (15) years imprisonment. 2. The applicant filed the present application dated 20th April 2026 seeking review of sentence on the grounds that he has undergone rehabilitation and should be allowed to serve the remainder of the sentence under a Community Service Order or probation supervision. She urged the court to grant the orders sought. 3. I have considered the application, the grounds in support thereof, and the applicable law. The record of the trial court shows that, in passing sentence, the court considered the applicant’s mitigation, the period spent in remand custody, and the fact that he was a first offender. The sentence imposed was lawful and proportionate in the circumstances of the case. 4. The applicant has not demonstrated any illegality, irregularity, or misdirection warranting interference by this Court on review. Rehabilitation alone is not sufficient ground to vary a lawful sentence properly imposed by the trial court. 5. Accordingly, I find no basis to revise or interfere with the sentence imposed. The application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. **Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 3rd day of June 2026** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **D. KAVEDZA** **JUDGE**