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

George Saul Reuben Gatita v Republic

Gatita v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E135 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 13464 (KLR) (29 September 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 13464 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION E135 OF 2025 DR KAVEDZA, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 BETWEEN GEORGE SAUL REUBEN GATITA ....................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant was charged and after a full trial convicted for the offence of grievous harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve life imprisonment. 2. The applicant filed the present application dated 23rd June 2025 seeking sentence review. The grounds raised are that the sentence imposed should be revised and to consider the time spent in remand . 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 and the aggravating circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed was legal. 4. In my view of the foregoing, I find no good cause or reason to revise the sentence imposed by the trial court. The application dismissed for lacking in merit. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 D. KAVEDZA ______________ JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/13464/eng@2025-09-29 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.