Vosereze v Republic (Criminal Revision E046 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 5543 (KLR) (5 May 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 5543 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA CRIMINAL REVISION E046 OF 2025 DR KAVEDZA, J MAY 5, 2025 BETWEEN NELSON VOSEREZE ............................................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant was convicted of robbery with violence (Section 296(2), Penal Code), abduction (Section 259, Penal Code), and gang defilement (Section 10, Sexual Offences Act 2006). He was sentenced to 7 years, 6 years, and 15 years respectively, with all sentences running concurrently. 2. He has filed the present undated application seeking sentence review. The grounds raised are that he is the sole breadwinner in his family who have suffered since his incarceration. He is remorseful for the offence committed. He has undergone rehabilitation. He urged the court to revise the sentence of the trial court to a non-custodial sentence. 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, the time spent in remand custody and the fact that the applicant was a first offender before sentencing. Having considered the application in its totality. The sentence imposed was also legal in the circumstances of the case. 4. In my view I find no good cause or reason to revise the sentence imposed by the trial court. The application is dismissed. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 5TH DAY OF MAY 2025 ________________ D. KAVEDZA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/5543/eng@2025-05-05 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.