Kenya Case Law

Amaremba v Republic

Amaremba v Republic [2025] KEHC 10650 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E151 of 2025

Judge

RN Nyakundi

The court found that the applicant, having pleaded guilty and demonstrated remorse, was a suitable candidate for a non-custodial sentence. The probation officer's report confirmed his positive conduct in prison, willingness to reform, and readiness to undertake community service. The court emphasized that custodial sentences should be a last resort and that the objectives of sentencing—rehabilitation, deterrence, community protection, and reintegration—could be achieved through a community service order. The court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction under sections 362 and 364 of the Crimin…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Policy
• Non Custodial Sentences
• Revision Jurisdiction
• Community Service Orders

Koech v Republic

Koech v Republic [2025] KECA 1333 (KLR)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal E096 of 2023

Judges

AK Murgor, SG Kairu, KI Laibuta

The Court of Appeal held that while Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obliges sentencing courts to consider time spent in remand custody, the appellant did not demonstrate before the High Court that the trial court failed to do so. Furthermore, the appellant did not appeal the sentence but instead sought revision, which is precluded by Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code when an appeal lies and is not pursued. The High Court did not err in dismissing the revision application, and there was no basis for the appellate court to interfere with that decision. The appeal was t…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Principles
• Remand Custody Credit
• Revision Jurisdiction
• Appeals Process

Bekel & 6 others v Republic

Bekel & 6 others v Republic [2025] KEHC 10647 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E005 of 2025

Judge

SC Chirchir

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision application, holding that the applicants showed no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness in the sentence.

• Revision Jurisdiction
• Illegal Presence
• Sentencing Principles
• Criminal-revision
• Sentencing
• Immigration-offences

Director of Public Prosecution v Ndula & 8 others

Director of Public Prosecution v Ndula & 8 others [2025] KEHC 10609 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E294 of 2024

Judge

SC Chirchir

The court found that while the prosecution's omission to disclose additional witness statements at the pre-trial stage was due to inadvertence and reflected indolence, this did not, in itself, justify denying the application to introduce further evidence. The court emphasized that disclosure is a continuous process during trial, as long as the prosecution's case is not closed, and that the defence must be given sufficient time to study and respond to new evidence. The court also noted that the respondents failed to provide evidence of a binding consent barring further applications for additio…

Source excerpt

• Disclosure Of Evidence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Procedural Justice
• Revision Jurisdiction

Murungi v Republic

Murungi v Republic [2025] KEHC 10558 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E002 of 2025

Judge

SM Githinji

The court found that the trial magistrate failed to consider and deduct the 53 days the applicant spent in custody prior to being released on bail, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judge held that the omission was an error warranting revision of the sentence. Consequently, the applicant's 10-year imprisonment sentence was ordered to be reduced by 53 days, with the prison authorities directed to effect this adjustment. The court reaffirmed the mandatory requirement for trial courts to account for pre-sentence custodial periods in sentencing, ensuring compliance…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Principles
• Credit For Time Served
• Revision Jurisdiction
• Grievous Harm
• Custodial Sentences

Mohamed v Republic

Mohamed v Republic [2025] KEHC 10251 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E019 of 2025

Judge

JN Onyiego

The court held that although section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the sentencing court to account for the period spent in remand custody, the High Court, having already determined the applicant's appeal and resentenced him to a definite term of 30 years, lacks jurisdiction to further revise its own sentencing order. The proper forum for such correction is the Court of Appeal. The application was therefore dismissed as the High Court could not interfere with its own final order post-appeal.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Principles
• Remand Custody Credit
• Revision Jurisdiction
• Appeal Procedure

Kabaiko v Republic

Kabaiko v Republic [2025] KEHC 10167 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Petition E071 of 2023

Judge

RN Nyakundi

The court held that the applicant failed to present any new or compelling evidence that was not available at the time of trial or appeal. The sentence of life imprisonment for defilement was confirmed by both the trial and appellate courts, and there was no demonstration of error in principle, manifest excessiveness, or injustice in the sentence imposed. The court reiterated that the threshold for sentence review under Article 50(6) of the Constitution and sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires new and compelling evidence or a clear miscarriage of justice, neither of whi…

Source excerpt

• Sentence Review
• New And Compelling Evidence
• Defilement Offence
• Criminal Appeal
• Revision Jurisdiction

Mumba v Republic

Mumba v Republic [2025] KEHC 10396 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E296 of 2024

Judge

M Thande

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision application, holding that the applicant should have appealed against the subordinate court sentence rather than seek revision.

• Revision Jurisdiction
• Sentencing Principles
• Appeal Procedure
• Criminal-revision
• Sentencing
• Appeals-procedure

Gikundi v Republic

Gikundi v Republic [2025] KEHC 9924 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E036 of 2023

Judge

SM Githinji

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to revise a sentence imposed by a judge of coordinate jurisdiction under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant, having already appealed to the High Court and had his appeal dismissed, cannot seek revision of that decision in the same court. The proper avenue for challenging the High Court's decision was an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which the applicant did not pursue. Furthermore, once the President commuted the applicant's death sentence to life imprisonment, the penalty became an executive act, not subject to judicial revisi…

Source excerpt

• Revision Jurisdiction
• Robbery With Violence
• Life Imprisonment
• Commutation Of Sentence

Masia v Republic

Masia v Republic [2025] KEHC 9835 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E007 of 2025

Judge

WM Musyoka

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenge to a two-year theft sentence, holding that sentencing discretion and revision jurisdiction were not misused.

• Sentencing Discretion
• Revision Jurisdiction
• Plea Of Guilty
• Mitigating Factors
• Criminal-sentencing
• Criminal-revision