Skip to content
JudgmentHassan Njara Ramadhan VS The Republic3 min read

Hassan Njara Ramadhan VS The Republic

High Court at Voi High Court · · George. Dulu


  1. This is a request for review of sentence brought by the applicant Hassan Njara Ramadhan on the following grounds:-
  2. That he was a first offender who regrets the offence and is remorseful.
  3. The court be pleased to reduce the custodial sentence and replace it with a more lenient one or even non-custodial sentence (CSO) to enable him cater for the needs of his old parents back at home.
  4. That he is duly reformed having been taken through various rehabilitation programmes which have worked out both morally and ethically.
  5. That he has also joined the prison’s school academy as a student to improve on his logical understanding.
  6. That he prays this court to invoke the provisions of Section 333(2) CPC and direct that the period he stayed in remand pending conclusion of this matter be factored upon consideration to review his sentence.
  7. That he is remorseful and regrets the incidence hence promise never to repeat it again in future.
  8. That he is a young man and thereby prays for a second chance in life.
  9. The applicant filed written submissions in support of his request, while Mr. Sirima for the Director of Public Prosecutions orally opposed the request stating that the applicant had appealed in Voi High Court Criminal Appeal No. E004 of 2020 and that on 7th June 2021 Ong’injo J. dismissed his appeal.  Mr. Sirima argued that as such this court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the request for review of sentence.
  10. I have perused the trial court record and the appeal in the High Court.  The appellant was tried and convicted of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006, and sentenced to serve in jail for 20 years in Taveta PM Criminal Case No. 10 of 2019 Republic =Versus= Hassan Njara Ramadhan.
  11. He filed an appeal to this court – Voi High Court Criminal Appeal No. E004 of 2020, and though I have seen the appeal file, I don’t see copy of the judgment in the file except an order by Ong’injo J. signed by the Deputy Registrar on 7th June 2021 that the sentence of 20 years is hereby upheld.  I must say that I have seen the grounds of appeal which were against both conviction and sentence.
  12. The appellant has come to this court seeking review of sentence, and has informed this court that he did not go to the Court of Appeal because of delay in being availed the judgment.
  13. I observe from the record of proceedings in the trial court, that the appellant was in custody during trial.  He was arrested on 12th May 2019 and brought to court on 15th May 2019 and sentenced on 17th January 2020, a period of about 8 months.
  14. I note that in sentencing him the trial court stated as follows:-

“Mitigation noted.  However, the sentence meted out is provided for by statute.  Besides the accused person has habitually defiled the minor.  He has ruined her life and it will take her a very long time to recover from the traumatic episode.  Accordingly, the accused person is hereby sentenced to serve in jail for a period of 20 years.  Right of appeal 14 days.”

  1. It is clear to me that the length of sentence of 20 years in jail was the legal sentence.  However, under the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap.75) the period the applicant was in custody should have been taken into account in sentencing him.
  2. As the period in custody during trial was not factored in the period the applicant is to serve in prison by the trial court, I find sufficient reason to review the sentence.
  3. I thus uphold the sentence imposed by the trial court but order that the sentence of 20 years imprisonment will run from 12th May 2019 when the applicant herein was arrested.

Dated, signed and delivered this ……day of March 2024 in open court at Voi.


    Hassan Njara Ramadhan VS The Republic Hassan Njara Ramadhan VS The Republic