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

Geoffrey Kiplangat v Republic

Kiplangat v Republic (Revision Case E653 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 3415 (KLR) (27 April 2023) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 3415 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAKURU REVISION CASE E653 OF 2022 HM NYAGA, J APRIL 27, 2023 BETWEEN GEOFFREY KIPLANGAT ....................................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant, Geoffrey Kiplangat was convicted on his own plea of guilty for the offence of Burglary contrary to section 304(2) of the Penal Code. 2. On July 6, 2022 he was sentenced to serve 18 months’ imprisonment. 3. The Order before this court is for revision. 4. I note that the trial court did not seek for a social inquiry report before sentencing him. However, the sentence is lawful. 5. He is a first time offender and he has spent a considerable period in prison. If the sentence imposed was meant to teach him a lesson, I think that the time spent in custody so far is sufficient for that purpose. 6. I hereby exercise judicial discretion and with a view of decongesting the Prison, review the sentence and order a suspended sentence for the remainder of the prison term. I therefor order for the release of the convict Geoffrey Kiplangat from prison forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. 7. File Closed. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 27TH APRIL, 2023. H.M. NYAGA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2023/3415/eng@2023-04-27 1

page 1 of 2

In the presence of: C/A Jeniffer Murunga for state Applicant present https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2023/3415/eng@2023-04-27 2

page 2 of 2

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.