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

Salim Issa Abdalla v Republic

Abdalla v Republic (Criminal Revision E006 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 8187 (KLR) (9 May 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 8187 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT GARSEN CRIMINAL REVISION E006 OF 2025 JN NJAGI, J MAY 9, 2025 BETWEEN SALIM ISSA ABDALLA .......................................................................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant has filed an undated Notice of Motion application seeking for review of his sentence on the ground that he has served 7 years of the 20-year sentence imposed on him for the offence of defilement. The application comes after his appeals to the High Court and the Court of Appeal were unsuccessful. 2. The applicant pleads that he is aged 45 years. That he has been a model prisoner during the cause of his imprisonment. That he is of failing health and has been suffering from diabetes, high blood pressure and failing eye sight. 3. The Respondent left the application at the decision of the court. 4. I have considered the sentence review application. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. There is no basis for this court to review a sentence that has been rejected by the Court of Appeal. The application is thereby dismissed. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT GARSEN THIS 9TH DAY OF MAY 2025. J. N. NJAGI JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Oluoch for Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/8187/eng@2025-05-09 1

page 1 of 2

Applicant: Present in prison at GK Prison Voi Court Assistant: Ndonye https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/8187/eng@2025-05-09 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.