Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Cyrus Muse Wambua & 2 others v Republic

REPUBLIC OF KENYA HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL DIVISION CRIMINAL REVISION E090 OF 2021 CYRUS MUSE WAMBUA......................................................................................APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC..........................................................................................................RESPONDENT RULING COURT The applicant was charged with the offence of stealing as per the charge sheet. He pleaded not guilty on plea date and then entered a plea bargaining that read the sentence of an order he pays Kshs30,000 and in addition pay the complainant a sum of Kshs 107,000 in default to serve two years imprisonment. The applicant seeks for review of the sentence. From what has been canvassed before me and the record of the lower court sentence. I note the following: a. No default period for non-payment of Kshs30,000. I therefore review the sentence by ordering that on default of payment of that money, he serves 6 months imprisonment. b. Secondly, the default period of Kshs 107,000 should have been one (1) year and not two years. I therefore review the same from two (2) years to one year. c. The custodial sentence in lieu of default to pay fine run consecutively NOT concurrently. d. In view of the fact that this is plea bargaining case, and the terms have not been met, further, the sentence of 16 months is already lenient, the period in custody will be deemed to have been taken into account while sentencing. it is so ordered. RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 GRACE L. NZIOKA JUDGE In the presence of: Applicant present in person No appearance for the applicant Ms Chege for the Respondent Ombuna – Court Assistant

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.