REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KABARNET
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E005 OF 2026
ISAAC CHESUNDO BASKWONY…….......................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC............................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Applicant ISAAC CHESUNDO BASKWONY was charged with the offence Manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge were that the Applicant on the 21 st day of September, 2023 at around 0600Hours at Kampi U plot junction- Loboi village, Yatoi Sub-location, Marigat Location in Baringo South Sub-county within Baringo County, unlawfully killed Maxwel Juma Masika.
2. The Applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge and the matter was heard wherein the prosecution called 6 witnesses and the accused testified in his defence.
3. On the 5 th day of March,2025 the court delivered its judgement , he was found guilty as charged and convicted accordingly. On 19 th March,2025 he was sentenced to serve 3 years imprisonment.
4. The Applicant has now approached this court vide undated notice of motion Application brought under the provisions of Section 4 Cap 63 of the Laws of Kenya seeking review of the remainder of his sentence to a non-custodial sentence. The grounds for the application are that he is a remorseful, first offender with no past criminal records, entirely repentant, reformed and rehabilitated thus he prays that this court grants him a second chance to be a role model.
5. The applicant avers that for the period he has been in custody, he has learnt a lot and that he is now left with only one year in prison. He states that he is a family man with a wife and 10 children who depended on him for provision of basic needs.
6. The applicant states further that the current situation in prison does not favour his health condition and he is currently being held in isolation room after he tested positive for Tuberculosis (TB).
7. When the matter came up for hearing on the 23 rd April,2026, the court called for a sentence review report which was filed on the 13 th May,2026.
8. The report indicates that the applicant’s family described him as a son who has been a law abiding citizen and that he did the offence out of anger. He seeks that the applicant be granted non-custodial sentence so that he can take care of his children ; that reconciliation process has never been done and it is hard for him to initiate since he does not know the victim/deceased and the relatives and that what he only knows is that the victim was a casual worker within the community and his homeland was in Bungoma.
9. The mother to the victim indicated that victim was the main bread winner ;the only one who used to pay for rent, provide for her and pay school fees for the younger sister. She stated that as a family, they had not received any reconciliation from the Applicant’s family ;that she tried to pursue reconciliation but the Applicant’s family were very rigid.
10. The local administration indicated that the offence took place in Marigat where the applicant was living in a rented house with his second wife; that he is not opposed to the Applicant’s prayer noting that he had been of good character. He confirmed that reconciliation has never taken place between the two families.
11. The prison indicated that he was not able to continue with his carpentry course due to the fact that he was ill and he has received medication. They noted that his character had been good while in custody.
12. The probation officer indicates that the Applicant has 9 months to complete his sentence. That but the victim’s family view is that the Applicant should complete his sentence since reconciliation and compensation has not taken place. They do recommend that that the Applicant be admitted into community rehabilitation sentence once reconciliation has taken place.
Determination
13. Section 362 as read with Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the revisional jurisdiction of this court, in appropriate cases, to review and vary any orders, decision or sentence passed by the trial court if the court was satisfied that the impugned order, decision or sentence was illegal or was a product of an error or impropriety on the part of the trial court .
14. In this case, the applicant has maintained that he is remorseful, reformed since he has been in prison for some time and he is now remaining with 9 months to complete his sentence.
15. I have considered the Sentence review report and the Probation Officers Report that was presented in the subordinate court. Even then the family, the community had no problem with the accused person being placed in a non-custodial sentence. The court exercised it discretion to sentence the applicant to 3 years in prison for an offence whose maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
16. There was an opportunity for compensation/reconciliation by the applicant’s family to that of the deceased’s family but that has not been forth coming in any way. The victim’s family feels that the sentence did not match up to the loss of their kin.
17. The trial court exercised leniency and gave the applicant a minimal sentence .
18. I find that it would not be appropriate to interfere with the sentence.
19. The application for review is declined.
20. The file is closed
Ruling dated signed and delivered virtually this 5 th June 2026
Mumbua T Matheka
Judge
Ruling HC CR REV E005 of 2025 Page 2 of 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KABARNET
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E005 OF 2026
ISAAC CHESUNDO BASKWONY…….......................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC............................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Applicant ISAAC CHESUNDO BASKWONY was charged with the offence Manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge were that the Applicant on the 21 st day of September, 2023 at around 0600Hours at Kampi U plot junction- Loboi village, Yatoi Sub-location, Marigat Location in Baringo South Sub-county within Baringo County, unlawfully killed Maxwel Juma Masika.
2. The Applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge and the matter was heard wherein the prosecution called 6 witnesses and the accused testified in his defence.
3. On the 5 th day of March,2025 the court delivered its judgement , he was found guilty as charged and convicted accordingly. On 19 th March,2025 he was sentenced to serve 3 years imprisonment.
4. The Applicant has now approached this court vide undated notice of motion Application brought under the provisions of Section 4 Cap 63 of the Laws of Kenya seeking review of the remainder of his sentence to a non-custodial sentence. The grounds for the application are that he is a remorseful, first offender with no past criminal records, entirely repentant, reformed and rehabilitated thus he prays that this court grants him a second chance to be a role model.
5. The applicant avers that for the period he has been in custody, he has learnt a lot and that he is now left with only one year in prison. He states that he is a family man with a wife and 10 children who depended on him for provision of basic needs.
6. The applicant states further that the current situation in prison does not favour his health condition and he is currently being held in isolation room after he tested positive for Tuberculosis (TB).
7. When the matter came up for hearing on the 23 rd April,2026, the court called for a sentence review report which was filed on the 13 th May,2026.
8. The report indicates that the applicant’s family described him as a son who has been a law abiding citizen and that he did the offence out of anger. He seeks that the applicant be granted non-custodial sentence so that he can take care of his children ; that reconciliation process has never been done and it is hard for him to initiate since he does not know the victim/deceased and the relatives and that what he only knows is that the victim was a casual worker within the community and his homeland was in Bungoma.
9. The mother to the victim indicated that victim was the main bread winner ;the only one who used to pay for rent, provide for her and pay school fees for the younger sister. She stated that as a family, they had not received any reconciliation from the Applicant’s family ;that she tried to pursue reconciliation but the Applicant’s family were very rigid.
10. The local administration indicated that the offence took place in Marigat where the applicant was living in a rented house with his second wife; that he is not opposed to the Applicant’s prayer noting that he had been of good character. He confirmed that reconciliation has never taken place between the two families.
11. The prison indicated that he was not able to continue with his carpentry course due to the fact that he was ill and he has received medication. They noted that his character had been good while in custody.
12. The probation officer indicates that the Applicant has 9 months to complete his sentence. That but the victim’s family view is that the Applicant should complete his sentence since reconciliation and compensation has not taken place. They do recommend that that the Applicant be admitted into community rehabilitation sentence once reconciliation has taken place.
Determination
13. Section 362 as read with Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the revisional jurisdiction of this court, in appropriate cases, to review and vary any orders, decision or sentence passed by the trial court if the court was satisfied that the impugned order, decision or sentence was illegal or was a product of an error or impropriety on the part of the trial court .
14. In this case, the applicant has maintained that he is remorseful, reformed since he has been in prison for some time and he is now remaining with 9 months to complete his sentence.
15. I have considered the Sentence review report and the Probation Officers Report that was presented in the subordinate court. Even then the family, the community had no problem with the accused person being placed in a non-custodial sentence. The court exercised it discretion to sentence the applicant to 3 years in prison for an offence whose maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
16. There was an opportunity for compensation/reconciliation by the applicant’s family to that of the deceased’s family but that has not been forth coming in any way. The victim’s family feels that the sentence did not match up to the loss of their kin.
17. The trial court exercised leniency and gave the applicant a minimal sentence .
18. I find that it would not be appropriate to interfere with the sentence.
19. The application for review is declined.
20. The file is closed
Ruling dated signed and delivered virtually this 5 th June 2026
Mumbua T Matheka
Judge
Ruling HC CR REV E005 of 2025 Page 2 of 2