Skip to content
JudgmentDANSON SHAO MWAMBURI VS The Republic2 min read

DANSON SHAO MWAMBURI VS The Republic

High Court at Voi High Court · · Asenath Ongeri

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.  E116 OF 2024

DANSON SHAKO MWABURI………………………....... APPLICANT

-VERSUS-

REPUBLIC………….……………………………………..RESPONDENT

RULING

  1. This file was placed before the High Court for revision under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. The High Court has power to call for and examine the record of the subordinate Court under the said Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  3. The purpose of exercising this power is for the Court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order, reviewed or passed by the said subordinate Court.
  4. I have perused the record of the subordinate Court in this case.
  5. The applicant was charged with the offence of malicious damage to property contrary to Section 339[1] of the penal Code. 
  6. The applicant pleaded guilty to the charge.
  7. The particulars of the charge were that on 8\5\2024 at midnight  at Karasani Area in Voi Subcounty within Taita Taveta County the applicant willfully and unlawfully destroyed seven window panes and seven security lights all worth ksh.250,000 the property of Jameson Mwamburi Mwawaza.
  8. The trial court sentenced the applicant to two years imprisonment without the option of any fine.
  9. The applicant has filed an application seeking revision of the sentence on the grounds that the two years prison sentence is extremely harsh considering that he is the first offender.
  10. The applicant is seeking a non-custodial sentence or appropriate relief.
  11. The applicant has also stated in his application that he is remorseful and has learnt from his mistake.  He stated that he has undergone change of behaviour.
  12. I find that this court has power to review a sentence under Section 362 of the C.P.C if the same is excessive.
  13. The applicant is a young man aged 24 years.
  14. He is a first offender and he pleaded guilty to the charge saving the court’s time for trial. He was under the influence of alcohol when he committed the offence.
  15. The court ought to have taken these factors into consideration while meting the sentence.
  16. I find the sentence of the two years imprisonment is excessive  in the circumstances.
  17. Since the applicant has been in custody since he was arrested, he has learnt his lesson that crime does not pay. The applicant was under the influence of alcohol when he committed the offence.
  18. The complainants who are his parents are directed to find a counsellor to assist the applicant to overcome his drinking problem.
  19. I accordingly order that the applicant be released forthwith from custody on the following conditions
  20. That the applicant keeps peace for the remainder of the sentence period.
  21. That the parents provide the applicant with a counsellor to assist him to overcome his drinking problem.
  22. That should the applicant repeat the offence or drink alcohol again, he will be arrested and brought back to serve the remainder of the two years sentence before being charged with any other offence.

Dated, Signed and Delivered online via Microsoft Teams at Voi this 18th day of December, 2024.

     ………….…………….

  1. N. ONGERI

    JUDGE

In the presence of:

……………………………. for the Applicant

…………………………….. for the Respondent

    DANSON SHAO MWAMBURI VS The Republic DANSON SHAO MWAMBURI VS The Republic