1. The Applicant was convicted in Nyamira MCCR E523 of 2025 of stealing stock contrary to Section 278 of the Penal Code and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on 1st December 2025. By the Notice of Motion dated 19th May 2026, he seeks revision of the sentence on the grounds that he pleaded guilty, is a first offender, is an orphan and wishes to pursue his education.
2. The starting point in considering whether to interfere with a sentence is the principle that sentencing is primarily a matter for the discretion of the trial court. In Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & another v Republic [2018] KECA 743 (KLR), the Court of Appeal stated that an appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with that discretion unless the trial court acted on a wrong principle, overlooked a material factor, took into account an irrelevant consideration or imposed a sentence that is manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
3. The Court of Appeal further observed in that case that the mere fact that an appellate court might itself have imposed a different sentence is not sufficient ground for interference where none of the recognised circumstances has been demonstrated.
4. Against those principles, the sentence imposed upon the Applicant must be considered in light of the statutory punishment for the offence. Section 278 of the Penal Code provides for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. The five-year sentence imposed on the Applicant was therefore within the statutory range and is lawful.
5. There is nothing before this Court to demonstrate that the trial court acted upon a wrong principle, overlooked a material consideration or took into account an irrelevant matter. The Applicant’s plea of guilty and his status as a first offender were matters available to the trial court when sentence was imposed. His personal circumstances and desire to pursue his education, while understandable, do not establish an error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion.
6. In the circumstances, the sentence cannot be said to be manifestly excessive or otherwise unlawful so as to warrant interference. The Applicant has therefore not demonstrated a basis upon which this Court may properly revise the sentence.
7. The Notice of Motion dated 19th May 2026 is accordingly dismissed.
DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 22nd DAY OF September 2026
2. The starting point in considering whether to interfere with a sentence is the principle that sentencing is primarily a matter for the discretion of the trial court. In Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & another v Republic [2018] KECA 743 (KLR), the Court of Appeal stated that an appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with that discretion unless the trial court acted on a wrong principle, overlooked a material factor, took into account an irrelevant consideration or imposed a sentence that is manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
3. The Court of Appeal further observed in that case that the mere fact that an appellate court might itself have imposed a different sentence is not sufficient ground for interference where none of the recognised circumstances has been demonstrated.
4. Against those principles, the sentence imposed upon the Applicant must be considered in light of the statutory punishment for the offence. Section 278 of the Penal Code provides for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. The five-year sentence imposed on the Applicant was therefore within the statutory range and is lawful.
5. There is nothing before this Court to demonstrate that the trial court acted upon a wrong principle, overlooked a material consideration or took into account an irrelevant matter. The Applicant’s plea of guilty and his status as a first offender were matters available to the trial court when sentence was imposed. His personal circumstances and desire to pursue his education, while understandable, do not establish an error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion.
6. In the circumstances, the sentence cannot be said to be manifestly excessive or otherwise unlawful so as to warrant interference. The Applicant has therefore not demonstrated a basis upon which this Court may properly revise the sentence.
7. The Notice of Motion dated 19th May 2026 is accordingly dismissed.
DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 22nd DAY OF September 2026