Amuno v Republic (Criminal Appeal E002 of 2022) [2025] KECA 1617 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that High Courts can increase lenient sentences during criminal revisions, raising this appellant's two-year term to fifteen years.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned judge erred in revising the sentence upwards
Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under sections 362 and 364 of the CPC by enhancing the sentence
It did not. Section 364(1)(a) permits the High Court, in the case of a conviction, to exercise the powers of a court of appeal and enhance the sentence where it is satisfied the original sentence was improper.
The Court restated the supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution and sections 362 and 364 of the CPC, under which the High Court may call for and examine the record of subordinate court proceedings to satisfy itself as to correctness, legality or propriety of any sentence, and may enhance it. The trial court failed to consider the aggravating circumstances, including the permanent and irreversible injuries and amputation suffered by the victim. Enhancement to fifteen years, within the statutory maximum of life imprisonment for grievous harm, was a proper exercise of discretion.
Whether the High Court erred by receiving the victim impact statement and hearing the victim's counsel during the revision
It did not. Hearing parties in a revision is discretionary, and a victim impact statement is a post-conviction exercise, not new evidence affecting the conviction.
The Court held that the decision whether to hear parties or advocates is discretionary save where the intended orders would prejudice the accused. The victim impact statement was merely an expression by an affected party of how the incident impacted him and a desire for an appropriate sentence; it did not determine the conviction but balanced the victim's position against the convict's mitigation. The Court adopted the Malaysian authority in Public Prosecutor vs. Muhari bin Mohd Jani on the supervisory, discretion-preserving nature of revisionary powers.
Legal principles established
#- The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under sections 362 and 364 of the CPC may only be exercised where the subordinate court's decision is wanting in correctness, legality or propriety; it cannot be used to revise a lawful, legal and regularly issued order.
- The decision whether or not to hear the parties or their advocates in a revision is discretionary, save where the orders intended to be made will prejudice the accused person.
- A victim impact statement is a post-conviction exercise and does not constitute new evidence affecting conviction.
- A sentence must be appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed in its entirety
- 2.The High Court's decision setting aside the two-year sentence and substituting a fifteen-year prison term left undisturbed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Siaya
- Criminal Revision Case No. 005 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly invoked in the judgment; first appeal to the Court of Appeal against a High Court ruling on revision
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the High Court's enhancement of sentence from two years to fifteen years imprisonment
The High Court, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, had the power to enhance the sentence under section 364(1)(a) of the CPC and there was no reason to interfere with that discretion
Costs
No costs order is made in the judgment
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The upshot is that the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in its entirety.
It follows that if no such situation arises, then the High Court cannot purport to exercise those powers therein and revise a lawful, legal and regularly issued order of the trial court.
A victim impact statement is a post conviction exercise intended to balance the scales between what the afiected says vis a vis what the convicted person states in mitigation.
In the case of a conviction, exercise any of the powers conferred on it as a court of appeal by sections 354, 357 and 358, and may enhance the sentence
The High Court, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, had the power to enhance that sentence as stipulated in Section 364 (1) (a) of the CPC and thus there is no reason to interfere with the discretion.
Issues in the judgment
#Gender of the judge is described inconsistently: she is referred to as 'the learned judge found' with 'She observed', but later as 'the appellant complains that the learned judge exceeded his mandate'
The judgment does not state the appeal number or neutral citation of the present appeal, nor does it make any costs order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amuno v Republic (Criminal Appeal E002 of 2022) [2025] KECA 1617 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1617/eng@2025-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.