1. Through a Notice of Motion dated 13 th May, 2026, the Applicant sought for orders thus;
1) That this honourable court be pleased to revise and reduce my sentence in the interest of justice.
2) That this matter be given priority in its determination.
2. The application is based on grounds that;
a. That the Applicant was charged, convicted at Nyahururu High Court in Criminal Case No. Cr. Case No. 11 of 2017 in the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 40 years imprisonment and the same was confirmed at the Court of Appeal at Nakuru COACRA No. 3 of 2021.
b. That the Applicant prays that the honourable court still review and reduce his sentence.
c. That based on the mitigation of the Applicant, he prays that this court do consider and reduce his sentence or order that he serves the remaining sentence under probation order.
d. That the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this case under Article 165(3)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya.
e. That this honourable court be pleased to consider the time the Appellant spent in remand and add to his sentence pursuant to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
f. That the prosecution will suffer no prejudice if this matter is considered.
3. The application is supported by a sworn affidavit of the Applicant in which he avers that he was sentenced by Nyahururu High Court for murder and sentenced to serve 40 years imprisonment, a sentence affirmed by the court of appeal which he seeks to be reduced.
4. Notably, the Applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal in Wainaina v Republic (Criminal Appeal E003 of 2021) [2025] KECA 1368 (KLR) whereby the Court delivered itself thus:
“…We note that the trial court afforded the appellant an opportunity to present mitigation during sentencing. The appellant pleaded for leniency and stated that he was remorseful, even though he refused to cooperate with the Probation Department on post conviction report. Nevertheless, the court found that the gravity and brutality of the offences outweighed the mitigating factors raised. The heinous manner in which the crime was committed called for a maximum sentence and in this case the learned Judge opted for 40 years imprisonment which was an appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the trial court’s decision on sentence. Accordingly, this appeal fails both on conviction and sentence and it is hereby dismissed.…”
5. Because the Court of Appeal is superior, this court cannot deal with the matter following the hierarchical order. Therefore, the matter is before a court that lacks jurisdiction.
6. For that reason, the application fails and is accordingly dismissed.
7. It is so ordered.
HCCR MISC. APP. E021 OF 2026 (RUL.) Page 2 of 2
1) That this honourable court be pleased to revise and reduce my sentence in the interest of justice.
2) That this matter be given priority in its determination.
2. The application is based on grounds that;
a. That the Applicant was charged, convicted at Nyahururu High Court in Criminal Case No. Cr. Case No. 11 of 2017 in the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 40 years imprisonment and the same was confirmed at the Court of Appeal at Nakuru COACRA No. 3 of 2021.
b. That the Applicant prays that the honourable court still review and reduce his sentence.
c. That based on the mitigation of the Applicant, he prays that this court do consider and reduce his sentence or order that he serves the remaining sentence under probation order.
d. That the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this case under Article 165(3)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya.
e. That this honourable court be pleased to consider the time the Appellant spent in remand and add to his sentence pursuant to Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
f. That the prosecution will suffer no prejudice if this matter is considered.
3. The application is supported by a sworn affidavit of the Applicant in which he avers that he was sentenced by Nyahururu High Court for murder and sentenced to serve 40 years imprisonment, a sentence affirmed by the court of appeal which he seeks to be reduced.
4. Notably, the Applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal in Wainaina v Republic (Criminal Appeal E003 of 2021) [2025] KECA 1368 (KLR) whereby the Court delivered itself thus:
“…We note that the trial court afforded the appellant an opportunity to present mitigation during sentencing. The appellant pleaded for leniency and stated that he was remorseful, even though he refused to cooperate with the Probation Department on post conviction report. Nevertheless, the court found that the gravity and brutality of the offences outweighed the mitigating factors raised. The heinous manner in which the crime was committed called for a maximum sentence and in this case the learned Judge opted for 40 years imprisonment which was an appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the trial court’s decision on sentence. Accordingly, this appeal fails both on conviction and sentence and it is hereby dismissed.…”
5. Because the Court of Appeal is superior, this court cannot deal with the matter following the hierarchical order. Therefore, the matter is before a court that lacks jurisdiction.
6. For that reason, the application fails and is accordingly dismissed.
7. It is so ordered.
HCCR MISC. APP. E021 OF 2026 (RUL.) Page 2 of 2