REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KABARNET
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E006 OF 2026
KADIR KALEGENO…………………….......................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC............................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Applicant KADIR KALEGENO was charged with Grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge were that the Applicant and another on the 1 st day of August,2024 at about 1800hours at Cheseret Village Kositei Location, Tiaty West Sub-county within Baringo County, jointly and unlawfully did grievous harm to Solomon Choriamuk.
2. The Applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge . The matter went through a full trial
3. Judgment was delivered on 19 th day of June,2025 . The applicant was found guilty and convicted accordingly. On the 27 th June,2025 he was sentenced to serve 5 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 remaining term of his sentence to a non-custodial sentence.
5. The Application is supported by his affidavit sworn . He avers that he is not disputing the sentence but he is only praying that this court review his sentence so that he can serve the remainder of his sentence of one year and eight months as a non-custodial sentence.
6. The applicant avers that he has sought for forgiveness from the complainant. He indicates that he has Grade 3 in carpentry and his wish is to be released so as to serve as a role model in the society.
7. The applicant has also indicated that he is a family man with a wife and children who depend on him for provision of basic needs.
8. When the matter came up for hearing on the 22 nd April,2026 the court called for a sentence review report which was filed on the 13 th May,2026 .
9. According to the report (the sister) the family is ready to accept the Applicant back and they are ready to assist him resettle. She confirmed that no reconciliation has taken place due to animosity between the two families.
10. The report from the prison authority is that the Applicant is obedient person and hardworking. The authority considers him reformed and therefore recommends review of his sentence. They indicate that the applicant has gone through counseling and life skills while in prison. They also confirmed that his sister is ready to assist him resettle and resume his boda boda business.
11. The probation officer indicates that considering the seriousness of the offence and also considering that the Applicant is not remorseful for his action he hesitates to recommend review of his sentence.
Determination
12. The application invokes the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 362 as read with Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code which gives the court powers, 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. If the court is so satisfied, the law mandates it to make appropriate orders to correct the impugned order, decision or sentence and align it with the law.
13. In this case, the applicant is seeking a non-custodial sentence. The Applicant denies the having caused grievous harm to the victim, he admits that he only pinched his fingers.
14. The record shows that the Applicant and his co accused another got hold of the complainant, tied his legs and hands with a rope and using pliers pinched his testicles causing serious grievous harm to him which left a permanent injury on the complainant’s private parts among other body parts. To date there is animosity between the two families.
15. The report is negative.
16. The offence of grievous harm carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The applicant received 5 years . The applicant seeking review denies committing the offence he was charged with.
17. This court cannot begin to consider whether or not the accused person committed the offence in an application such as this. That is a matter for the appeal court
18. Nothing in the application brings the matter into the purview of the revisionary powers of this court. No illegality, impropriety has been demonstrated to warrant the review..
19. The application is declined
20. The file is closed.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered virtually on 5 th June 2026
Mumbua T Matheka
Judge
Ruling HCCRC REV E006 of 2026 Page 2 of 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KABARNET
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E006 OF 2026
KADIR KALEGENO…………………….......................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC............................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Applicant KADIR KALEGENO was charged with Grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge were that the Applicant and another on the 1 st day of August,2024 at about 1800hours at Cheseret Village Kositei Location, Tiaty West Sub-county within Baringo County, jointly and unlawfully did grievous harm to Solomon Choriamuk.
2. The Applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge . The matter went through a full trial
3. Judgment was delivered on 19 th day of June,2025 . The applicant was found guilty and convicted accordingly. On the 27 th June,2025 he was sentenced to serve 5 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 remaining term of his sentence to a non-custodial sentence.
5. The Application is supported by his affidavit sworn . He avers that he is not disputing the sentence but he is only praying that this court review his sentence so that he can serve the remainder of his sentence of one year and eight months as a non-custodial sentence.
6. The applicant avers that he has sought for forgiveness from the complainant. He indicates that he has Grade 3 in carpentry and his wish is to be released so as to serve as a role model in the society.
7. The applicant has also indicated that he is a family man with a wife and children who depend on him for provision of basic needs.
8. When the matter came up for hearing on the 22 nd April,2026 the court called for a sentence review report which was filed on the 13 th May,2026 .
9. According to the report (the sister) the family is ready to accept the Applicant back and they are ready to assist him resettle. She confirmed that no reconciliation has taken place due to animosity between the two families.
10. The report from the prison authority is that the Applicant is obedient person and hardworking. The authority considers him reformed and therefore recommends review of his sentence. They indicate that the applicant has gone through counseling and life skills while in prison. They also confirmed that his sister is ready to assist him resettle and resume his boda boda business.
11. The probation officer indicates that considering the seriousness of the offence and also considering that the Applicant is not remorseful for his action he hesitates to recommend review of his sentence.
Determination
12. The application invokes the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 362 as read with Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code which gives the court powers, 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. If the court is so satisfied, the law mandates it to make appropriate orders to correct the impugned order, decision or sentence and align it with the law.
13. In this case, the applicant is seeking a non-custodial sentence. The Applicant denies the having caused grievous harm to the victim, he admits that he only pinched his fingers.
14. The record shows that the Applicant and his co accused another got hold of the complainant, tied his legs and hands with a rope and using pliers pinched his testicles causing serious grievous harm to him which left a permanent injury on the complainant’s private parts among other body parts. To date there is animosity between the two families.
15. The report is negative.
16. The offence of grievous harm carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The applicant received 5 years . The applicant seeking review denies committing the offence he was charged with.
17. This court cannot begin to consider whether or not the accused person committed the offence in an application such as this. That is a matter for the appeal court
18. Nothing in the application brings the matter into the purview of the revisionary powers of this court. No illegality, impropriety has been demonstrated to warrant the review..
19. The application is declined
20. The file is closed.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered virtually on 5 th June 2026
Mumbua T Matheka
Judge
Ruling HCCRC REV E006 of 2026 Page 2 of 2