Amudavi v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E171 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 15106 (KLR) (27 October 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 15106 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION E171 OF 2025 DR KAVEDZA, J OCTOBER 27, 2025 BETWEEN JACKSON AMUDAVI .............................................................................. APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant was charged and convicted for the offence of Defilement Contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offenses Act 2006. He was sentenced to twenty (20) years' imprisonment. He has now filed an application seeking revision of sentence. 2. He filed an appeal to the High Court vide High Court Criminal Appeal No E042 of 2023 which was dismissed on 10th March 2023 by the late Hon. Justice D. Ogembo. He filed an affidavit in support of his motion. The grounds raised are that the sentence served is sufficient rehabilitation. He urged the court to release him. 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. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 ______________ D. KAVEDZA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/15106/eng@2025-10-27 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.