Njoroge v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Revision E151 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 13576 (KLR) (1 October 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 13576 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL REVISION E151 OF 2025 DR KAVEDZA, J OCTOBER 1, 2025 BETWEEN PAUL NGUGI NJOROGE ....................................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant with another not before this court was charged and convicted on two counts of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code, Cap 63 Laws of Kenya. He was sentenced to death on both counts. He filed his first appeal where his sentence was reduced to 20 years imprisonment 2. He has now filed the present application dated 16th July 2025 seeking sentence review. The grounds raised are that the trial court failed to take into consideration the time spent in custody. 3. I have considered the application, the grounds in support and the applicable law. From the record of the court, the court considered the applicant’s mitigation, 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. The application dismissed. 5. The applicant is barred from filing any other application without leave of court. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 D. KAVEDZA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/13576/eng@2025-10-01 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.