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

Sadia Origicha Abdi v Republic

Abdi v Republic (Criminal Revision E123 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 13363 (KLR) (29 October 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 13363 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA CRIMINAL REVISION E123 OF 2024 DR KAVEDZA, J OCTOBER 29, 2024 BETWEEN SADIA ORIGICHA ABDI ....................................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant was charged and after a full trial convicted for the ofience of Grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code. She was sentenced to serve 7 years imprisonment. 2. She has filed the present application received on 20th August 2024 seeking revision of sentence. The grounds raised are that she was the bread winner to her youthful family. She urged the court to revise the sentence of the trial court and consider time spent in remand in line with section 333(2) of the CPC. 3. I have considered the application, the grounds in support and the applicable law. From the record of the trial court, the court considered the applicant’s mitigation and the time spent in remand custody. Having considered the application in its totality. The sentence imposed was also legal in the circumstances of the case. In my view I find no good cause or reason to revise the sentence imposed by the trial court. 4. The application dismissed for lacking in merit. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH OCTOBER 2024 D. KAVEDZA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2024/13363/eng@2024-10-29 1

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.