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

David Ochieng Yogo v Republic

Yogo v Republic (Criminal Revision E106 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 7287 (KLR) (11 June 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 7287 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CRIMINAL REVISION E106 OF 2024 RE ABURILI, J JUNE 11, 2024 BETWEEN DAVID OCHIENG YOGO ....................................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Applicant is David Ochieng Yogo. By his application dated 9th May 2024, he seeks for revision of sentence imposed on him on 30th March 2017 vide Kisumu HC Criminal Case No 013 of 2015 where he was convicted of the ofience of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code and sentenced to death. 2. No proceedings and judgment in the stated case are annexed. 3. The Applicant does not explain why he did not appeal against conviction or sentence. 4. This court cannot review lawful sentence vide an application for revision. 5. Furthermore, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment on 21st November 2022 as per the warrant of commitment for imprisonment annexed. 6. I find the application for sentence revision to be misconceived and devoid of merit. It is dismissed. 7. This file is closed. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 R. E. ABURILI ................................ JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2024/7287/eng@2024-06-11 1

page 1 of 2

I certify that this is a true copy of the original Signed DEPUTY REGISTRAR https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2024/7287/eng@2024-06-11 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.