I have examined the Court record carefully. I note that the applicant was arrested on 28.7.2025 and appeared in court on 30.7.2025 where he pleaded guilty to stealing four pairs of shoes worth 2,400/-
He was subsequently convicted and sentenced by C. Mwaniki (PM) on 26.8.2025 to serve two (2) years, six months imprisonment.
In sentencing the applicant, the court stated:
“I have received and considered the report, it finds the offender is unsuitable for non-custodial sentence. It reveals he been a bother to his family and society due to his anti-social criminal behavior. He therefore need rehabilitation. To his credit he has pleaded guilty saving court’s time. However, he is not remorseful.
Considering the above, I sentence him to serve (2) years and six months imprisonment”
In the notice of motion by the applicant, dated 2.9.2025, he among others sought
“ review of custodial sentence downwards or award fine in default of sentence.
He also sought the court to consider the period spent in custody pursuant to section 333 (2) of the CPC.
It is only the latter portion that the prosecutor concedes but opposes the review of sentence downwards.
However, upon careful perusal of the record, I find that this court has a duty to reconsider this sentence in the interest of Justice.
Firstly, is the nature of the charge in relation to subject matter. It was only involving an amount of Kshs.2,400/-
Secondly, he is a 1 st offender despite probation officer, claiming he has been engaged in criminal behaviour.
Thirdly, despite the trial court stating he was not remorseful, he clearly asked for forgiveness.
Further this court even doubts if this was an unequivocal plea of guilty, from the mitigation, the accused qualified the plea of guilty by stating “she owed me money”
Further even in the pre-sentence report, the probation officer unearthed that the accused has a recurrent medical issue that he has to be on constant medication for a mental condition.
In my view, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the sentence meted by the court on the accused was excessive in the circumstances. The trial court only took into account the pre-sentence report and placed heavy weight on it instead of treating it as part of “ as recommendation ” which have been considered alongside all the other factors.
Consequently, I am satisfied that this is a case which justice demands that the sentence be revisited. I thus reduce the sentenced to period already served and also that the applicant be released from prison forthwith.
Orders accordingly.
L. N. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
12.5.2026
HCCREV. E069 OF 2025 Page 1 | 1
He was subsequently convicted and sentenced by C. Mwaniki (PM) on 26.8.2025 to serve two (2) years, six months imprisonment.
In sentencing the applicant, the court stated:
“I have received and considered the report, it finds the offender is unsuitable for non-custodial sentence. It reveals he been a bother to his family and society due to his anti-social criminal behavior. He therefore need rehabilitation. To his credit he has pleaded guilty saving court’s time. However, he is not remorseful.
Considering the above, I sentence him to serve (2) years and six months imprisonment”
In the notice of motion by the applicant, dated 2.9.2025, he among others sought
“ review of custodial sentence downwards or award fine in default of sentence.
He also sought the court to consider the period spent in custody pursuant to section 333 (2) of the CPC.
It is only the latter portion that the prosecutor concedes but opposes the review of sentence downwards.
However, upon careful perusal of the record, I find that this court has a duty to reconsider this sentence in the interest of Justice.
Firstly, is the nature of the charge in relation to subject matter. It was only involving an amount of Kshs.2,400/-
Secondly, he is a 1 st offender despite probation officer, claiming he has been engaged in criminal behaviour.
Thirdly, despite the trial court stating he was not remorseful, he clearly asked for forgiveness.
Further this court even doubts if this was an unequivocal plea of guilty, from the mitigation, the accused qualified the plea of guilty by stating “she owed me money”
Further even in the pre-sentence report, the probation officer unearthed that the accused has a recurrent medical issue that he has to be on constant medication for a mental condition.
In my view, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the sentence meted by the court on the accused was excessive in the circumstances. The trial court only took into account the pre-sentence report and placed heavy weight on it instead of treating it as part of “ as recommendation ” which have been considered alongside all the other factors.
Consequently, I am satisfied that this is a case which justice demands that the sentence be revisited. I thus reduce the sentenced to period already served and also that the applicant be released from prison forthwith.
Orders accordingly.
L. N. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
12.5.2026
HCCREV. E069 OF 2025 Page 1 | 1