The court, after reviewing the probation report and considering the appellant's age, background, and repeated criminal conduct, determined that the appellant is a repeat offender with a history of absconding from non-custodial sentences. The court found that the objectives of sentencing, particularly rehabilitation and community protection, would best be served by a custodial sentence. Consequently, the sentence was reviewed from 10 years to 7 years' imprisonment, to run from the date the appellant was first charged, with the court expressly rejecting a non-custodial sentence due to the appel…
Mbogo & 2 others v Republic [2023] KEHC 26320 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E001 of 2022
Judge
DR Kavedza
The court found that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that any period spent in custody prior to sentencing must be taken into account when computing the sentence to be served. The court relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Ahmed Abolfathi Mohamed v Republic [2018] eKLR, which clarified that the sentence should be reduced by the period already spent in custody and should run from the date of arrest. The court also referenced the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines, which reinforce the obligation to consider pre-trial custody to avoid excessive punishment. Since th…
The High Court at Kisumu reviewed the applicant’s sentence for robbery and substituted it with a four-month community service order at Winam Law Courts.
Patrick Mutua Pius v Republic [2022] KEHC 2424 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E132 of 2021
Judge
BB Limo
The court found that the charge sheet was properly drafted in accordance with Section 295 of the Penal Code and was not duplicitous, as the applicant faced only one count and the statutory language was used. The amendment to the charge sheet was regular, having been made before plea, and benefited the applicant by reducing the severity of the charge. The plea taking process met the legal requirements, as the applicant understood the charge, responded unequivocally, and was given an opportunity to mitigate. The omission by the trial court to caution the applicant on the consequences of a guilt…
Boniface Mugo Maingi v Republic [2021] KEHC 1322 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E001 of 2021
Judge
FN Muchemi
The court found that Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that the period spent in custody prior to sentencing must be considered when passing sentence. The applicant was arrested on 11th January 2017 and convicted on 5th July 2017, having spent six months in remand custody. The trial court did not expressly consider this period. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, held that the applicant is legally entitled to have this period credited towards his sentence. The application for review under Section 333(2) was therefore merited and allowed. The applicant'…
The trial court erred by imposing a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment on each count of robbery, exceeding the statutory maximum of 14 years under Section 296(1) of the Penal Code. Further, the order suspending sentences for counts 2 and 3 pending execution of count 1 was improper, as such suspension is only appropriate where the death penalty is imposed on multiple counts. Since the offences arose from the same transaction and involved the same victims at the same time, the sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently. The correct approach, as per the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Gu…
Isaac Ndegwa Kimaru v Republic [2020] KEHC 5249 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision 8 of 2019
Judge
LK Kimaru
The High Court dismissed an application to revise sentence, holding it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider a sentence already dealt with on appeal by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.