The High Court at Kisumu declined to review Simon Mutai’s five-year arson sentence, finding the probation report unfavorable and ordering custody to continue.
The High Court at Nakuru revised Steven Malel’s 2-year arson sentence to community service after finding remorse, good conduct, and support for reintegration.
The High Court at Nakuru reviewed Kosgei’s 18-month arson sentence and substituted the remainder with community service after a sentence review report supported release.
The High Court at Siaya dismissed a duplicate criminal appeal as an abuse of process, noting the appellant had already filed an earlier appeal on the same conviction and sentence.
Geofrey Kibet Musonik v Republic [2022] KEHC 2914 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 104 of 2019
Judge
DN Musyoka
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to review the applicant's sentence for arson based on the Supreme Court's clarification that the Muruatetu decision applies exclusively to mandatory sentences for murder. The application for sentence review is therefore incompetent. Any further review or reduction of sentence must be pursued through administrative mechanisms such as parole, remission under the Prisons Act, or presidential clemency under Article 133 of the Constitution. The court's role in sentencing is limited to the statutory framework provided by the Criminal Procedure Code and does not ext…
Samuel Odhiambo Otina v Republic [2018] KEHC 2142 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision 4 of 2018
Judge
RE Aburili
High Court revision of a 2-year sentence for setting fire to cultivated crops. The court converted the remainder of the sentence to probation under Siaya County Probation.
The High Court found that the trial proceedings were fundamentally defective due to lack of jurisdiction, as the case was not heard in a Children’s Court as required by law. The plea of guilty was not properly recorded, with no evidence that the charge was read to the appellant in a language he understood, and the facts were not properly explained. The sentence imposed was unlawful because the appellant was under 16 years and could not be committed to a borstal institution under Section 191(g) of the Children Act. The court further held that ordering a retrial would be prejudicial to the appe…