https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11914
The sentence had already been reduced on appeal to eleven years, and the record showed the trial court considered mitigation, remand time, and first-offender status. The resulting sentence was lawful and proportionate, so there was no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness to justify revision.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 11914 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Yusuf Bilal; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E120 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Sentence Review Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Judges
- ["DR Kavedza"]
- Legal Topics
- Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs, Sentence Review, Non Custodial Sentence, Proportionality of Sentence, Illegality Impropriety or Incorrectness Threshold
- 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
Yusuf Bilal
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Sentence Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should revise a lawful sentence on the basis of remorse and rehabilitation.
- 2 Whether there was illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness in the sentence to justify revision.
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence had already been reduced on appeal to eleven years, and the record showed the trial court considered mitigation, remand time, and first-offender status. The resulting sentence was lawful and proportionate, so there was no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness to justify revision.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- Sentence review application is dismissed.
- Previous sentence of eleven years' imprisonment remains in force.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIBERA** **CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E120 OF 2026** YUSUF BILAL……...………….……………………………….….APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………………………………………….RESPONDENT **RULING.** 1. The applicant was charged with and convicted of the offence of trafficking in narcotic drugs contrary to section 4 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act, Cap. 245. He was sentenced to thirty-six (36) years' imprisonment. On appeal, the sentence was set aside and substituted with a term of eleven (11) years' imprisonment. 2. Vide an application dated 23rd June 2026, the applicant seeks sentence review. He contends that he is remorseful, has undergone rehabilitation while in custody, and urges the Court to substitute the custodial sentence with a non-custodial sentence. 3. I have considered the application, the grounds in support thereof, and the applicable law. The record shows that, before passing sentence, the trial court took into account the applicant's mitigation, the period spent in remand custody, and the fact that he was a first offender. The sentence imposed, and subsequently substituted on appeal, is lawful and proportionate in the circumstances of the case. 4. I find no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness to warrant the exercise of this Court's revisionary jurisdiction. The application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Orders accordingly. **Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 29th day of July 2026** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **D. KAVEDZA** **JUDGE**