The High Court at Nakuru found the criminal revision moot because the applicants had already fully served their 12-month sentences, and closed the file.
Kuria & another v Republic [2024] KEHC 10831 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E028 of 2024
Judge
DR Kavedza
The High Court at Kibera substituted each applicant’s three-year sentence for nine months’ community service after favourable probation reports and rehabilitation evidence.
The High Court at Kibera dismissed an application to revise a three-year sentence for store breaking and stealing, finding the sentence lawful and justified.
The High Court at Nakuru revised a custodial sentence to community service after a probation report found the applicant suitable and prison decongestion was cited.
The court found that the original three-year custodial sentence was excessive in light of the principle of parsimony, the minor nature of the offence (theft of maize valued at Kshs. 6,000, which was returned), and the applicant's status as a first offender who pleaded guilty. However, the applicant's refusal to be interviewed by the probation officer precluded consideration for a non-custodial sentence. Balancing the objectives of sentencing and the circumstances, the court substituted the three-year sentence with a one-year custodial sentence, taking into account the three months already ser…
Cheluget & another v Republic [2023] KEHC 24267 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Appeal E103 of 2022
Judge
DK Kemei
The High Court upheld the 1st appellant’s sentence but reduced the 2nd appellant’s punishment to a non-custodial community service order after reviewing the pre-sentencing reports.
The High Court found that the appellant was properly convicted on the first count of breaking into a building and committing a felony therein, as the evidence placed him at the scene, in charge of the security of the store, and in possession of the stolen property. The alleged defects in the second charge were immaterial since the conviction was not based on it. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses was consistent and credible, and there was no legal requirement for corroboration or for the prosecution to call every possible witness. The sentence imposed was found to be commensurate with…
The High Court found the concurrent sentences were lawful, corrected the committal warrant, and declined to convert the remaining term to non-custodial release.
The High Court found that the confession of the 3rd accused was properly obtained and admitted in accordance with the Evidence Act and the relevant rules, and that the appellants did not raise any substantive objection to its admissibility during trial. The court held that the prosecution proved the offences of arson and store breaking and committing a felony beyond reasonable doubt, relying on both direct and circumstantial evidence, including the confession and corroborative testimony from prosecution witnesses. The court rejected the appellants' arguments regarding procedural unfairness an…