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

Jasphat Orina Awiti v Republic

Awiti v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E160 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 13591 (KLR) (1 October 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 13591 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION E160 OF 2025 DR KAVEDZA, J OCTOBER 1, 2025 BETWEEN JASPHAT ORINA AWITI ....................................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant was charged and after a full trial convicted for the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2006. He was sentenced to serve twenty (20) years' imprisonment. 2. He filed the present application dated 10th July 2025 seeking sentence review. The grounds raised are that the time spent in custody from the date of arrest be considered. 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 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 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 D. KAVEDZA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/13591/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.