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

Eunice Koech & 1 other v Republic

Koech & another v Republic (Criminal Revision E057 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 6014 (KLR) (14 May 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 6014 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT ELDORET CRIMINAL REVISION E057 OF 2025 RN NYAKUNDI, J MAY 14, 2025 BETWEEN EUNICE KOECH ................................................................................ 1ST APPLICANT GLADYS CHIRCHIR ........................................................................ 2ND APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. Following a plea of guilty the Applicant was convicted and sentenced to a fine of 50,000 in default 6 months for an ofience of cutting and removing forest produce without authority contrary to Section 64 (1) of the Forest Conservation and Management Act 2016. She has now moved this court for a revision of that sentence in terms of Section 362 of the CPC as read with the community service order Act seeking non-custodial sentence. 2. I have read and considered the record and I am of the considered view that this is a fit case for review of the sentence and have it substituted with a non-custodial sentence of 1 month to be placed under C.S.O for 1 month at Chagaiya Dispensary. The Community Service Officer shall ensure compliance with the orders including giving credit to the period in question which shall be carried on at the Public Institution where this order shall apply. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 2025 ………………………………… R. NYAKUNDI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/6014/eng@2025-05-14 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.