1. The Applicant, Harun Buna Phillip, was charged in Kitui in Criminal Case 1056 of 2016 with the offence of causing grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code. Upon trial, he was convicted on 22nd June 2018 and sentenced to fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment.
2. The Applicant moved this Court through an undated Notice of Motion seeking revision of the sentence imposed by the trial court on the grounds that he is a first offender, is remorseful, regrets his actions, has undertaken rehabilitative programmes while in custody and has made efforts towards reconciliation and compensation of the complainant. He does not contest his conviction or the sentence and asks the Court to take into account the period already served and, in the alternative, impose a non-custodial sentence for the remainder of the term.
3. The Respondent opposes the application through the Grounds of Opposition dated 31st August 2026. Its position is that the sentence was determined by the trial court, that the Applicant is attempting to circumvent the appellate process, that this Court has no jurisdiction to review the sentence in the manner sought and that the application is consequently an abuse of the court process.
4. The question for determination is whether the sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment imposed upon the Applicant is lawful and, if it is, whether the matters advanced in the application provide a proper basis for its revision.
5. The revisionary power of the High Court is drawn from Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution, which provides:
“(6) The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court.
(7) For the purposes of clause (6), the High Court may call for the record of any proceedings before any subordinate court or person, body or authority referred to in clause (6), and may make any order or give any direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice.”
10. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives effect to that supervisory jurisdiction in criminal proceedings. It provides:
“The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court.”
11. The jurisdiction is therefore not confined to correcting an unlawful sentence. It extends to the correctness and propriety of the sentence imposed, as well as the regularity of the proceedings. The Court must consequently examine the record to determine whether the sentence imposed upon the Applicant was one that the trial court was legally entitled to impose and whether there is any basis upon which this Court ought to interfere in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.
12. I have considered the Applicant’s contention that he is a first offender, is remorseful, regrets his conduct, has undergone rehabilitation while in custody and has made efforts towards reconciliation and compensation of the complainant. I have also considered the period he has already spent in custody.
13. Section 234 of the Penal Code provides that a person who unlawfully does grievous harm to another is guilty of a felony and “is liable to imprisonment for life”. The Applicant was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The sentence was therefore within the punishment prescribed by law.
14. The Applicant was arrested on 06th October 2016 and released on cash bail on 11th October 2016. The period from 06th October 2016 to 11th October 2016, being the period spent in custody before release on bail, was required to be taken into account in determining the sentence pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. I therefore find that the five days spent in custody during that period ought to be credited towards the sentence.
15. Beyond that credit, the Applicant has not demonstrated any error in the sentencing process, illegality, impropriety or irregularity warranting further interference with the sentence. His remorse, rehabilitation and efforts towards reconciliation are matters of mitigation, but do not by themselves provide a basis for revision of an otherwise lawful sentence.
16. In the result, the sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment remains undisturbed, subject to credit for the five days spent in custody between 06th and 11th October 2016 pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The Applicant moved this Court through an undated Notice of Motion seeking revision of the sentence imposed by the trial court on the grounds that he is a first offender, is remorseful, regrets his actions, has undertaken rehabilitative programmes while in custody and has made efforts towards reconciliation and compensation of the complainant. He does not contest his conviction or the sentence and asks the Court to take into account the period already served and, in the alternative, impose a non-custodial sentence for the remainder of the term.
3. The Respondent opposes the application through the Grounds of Opposition dated 31st August 2026. Its position is that the sentence was determined by the trial court, that the Applicant is attempting to circumvent the appellate process, that this Court has no jurisdiction to review the sentence in the manner sought and that the application is consequently an abuse of the court process.
4. The question for determination is whether the sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment imposed upon the Applicant is lawful and, if it is, whether the matters advanced in the application provide a proper basis for its revision.
5. The revisionary power of the High Court is drawn from Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution, which provides:
“(6) The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court.
(7) For the purposes of clause (6), the High Court may call for the record of any proceedings before any subordinate court or person, body or authority referred to in clause (6), and may make any order or give any direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice.”
10. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives effect to that supervisory jurisdiction in criminal proceedings. It provides:
“The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court.”
11. The jurisdiction is therefore not confined to correcting an unlawful sentence. It extends to the correctness and propriety of the sentence imposed, as well as the regularity of the proceedings. The Court must consequently examine the record to determine whether the sentence imposed upon the Applicant was one that the trial court was legally entitled to impose and whether there is any basis upon which this Court ought to interfere in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.
12. I have considered the Applicant’s contention that he is a first offender, is remorseful, regrets his conduct, has undergone rehabilitation while in custody and has made efforts towards reconciliation and compensation of the complainant. I have also considered the period he has already spent in custody.
13. Section 234 of the Penal Code provides that a person who unlawfully does grievous harm to another is guilty of a felony and “is liable to imprisonment for life”. The Applicant was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The sentence was therefore within the punishment prescribed by law.
14. The Applicant was arrested on 06th October 2016 and released on cash bail on 11th October 2016. The period from 06th October 2016 to 11th October 2016, being the period spent in custody before release on bail, was required to be taken into account in determining the sentence pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. I therefore find that the five days spent in custody during that period ought to be credited towards the sentence.
15. Beyond that credit, the Applicant has not demonstrated any error in the sentencing process, illegality, impropriety or irregularity warranting further interference with the sentence. His remorse, rehabilitation and efforts towards reconciliation are matters of mitigation, but do not by themselves provide a basis for revision of an otherwise lawful sentence.
16. In the result, the sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment remains undisturbed, subject to credit for the five days spent in custody between 06th and 11th October 2016 pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.