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

Samuel Maina Muthee v Republic

Muthee v Republic (Criminal Revision 344 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 3707 (KLR) (26 March 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 3707 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA CRIMINAL REVISION 344 OF 2024 DR KAVEDZA, J MARCH 26, 2025 BETWEEN SAMUEL MAINA MUTHEE .................................................................. APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. This file was opened for purposes of considering whether the convict Samuel Maina Muthee is suitable for consideration of his sentence review in the spirit of prison decongestion pursuant to the Chief Justice Memo dated 7th December 2022. 2. The applicant was convicted of the offense of stealing by servant contrary to section 268(1) as read with section 281 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment. 3. The convict stole a substantial sum of money; however, he has not provided any proposal regarding how he intends to repay the stolen amount. Additionally, the applicant still has a balance of two years and four months remaining on his sentence. After carefully reviewing the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s conviction, it is clear that the offense committed is extremely serious. 4. As such, I find that the applicant is not eligible for early release under the decongestion program. The applicant is hereby ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence to completion. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 .................... D. KAVEDZA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/3707/eng@2025-03-26 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.