Desmond Rotich v Republic

6. While in prison, the applicant has been undertaking a Carpentry Grade 3 course and is awaiting to sit for his final examinations. The report notes that the applicant has demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation and personal development during incarceration. 7. The two complainants stated that a local pastor had approached them requesting that they forgive the applicant for the sake of his two children, who have suffered since their mother left following his incarceration. They confirmed that the stolen sheep were recovered and expressed no objection to the revision of the sentence, provided the applicant reforms and becomes a law-abiding citizen. They noted that his release would be in the best interest of his young children. 8. The applicant’s mother also pleaded for his release, stating that she is overwhelmed caring for his two children. 9. The community and the local pastor described the applicant as having been of good conduct prior to the incident. They indicated he can be reintegrated into the community to support his children one aged four years, has not yet started school. The pastor further offered to assist in reconciling the applicant with the complainants. Analysis And Determination 10. The jurisdiction of this Court to revise criminal proceedings is conferred by Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 362 empowers the High Court to call for the record of a subordinate court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order, and the regularity of the proceedings. Section 364 grants the Court authority to alter or reverse a sentence or order where illegality, impropriety, or irregularity is established. 11. The principles governing revision are well established. Revision is a supervisory not appellate jurisdiction. The Court does not interfere simply because it might have imposed a different sentence. It intervenes only where the sentence is illegal, manifestly excessive, irregular, or based on a misdirection. (See Republic v James Kiarie Mutungei [2019] eKLR; Republic v Mohammed Abdow Mohammed [2013] eKLR.) 12. In reviewing sentences, the Court is guided by the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2023, particularly Part V and Section 5.1, which emphasize proportionality, rehabilitation, restorative justice, reconciliation, and the use of non-custodial measures where appropriate especially for first offenders with strong reintegration prospects. 13. The applicant is a first offender with a previously clean record. The complainants recovered their stolen livestock and do not oppose his early release. The applicant’s two young children remain vulnerable in his absence. He has taken meaningful steps toward rehabilitation by pursuing a Carpentry Vocational Course while in prison, which refiects efforts at personal reform and future reintegration. 14. Considering the period already served, the positive social inquiry report, the victims’ position, the applicant’s ongoing rehabilitation through vocational training, and the objectives of sentencing including rehabilitation, reparation, and restorative justice, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for the exercise of the Court’s revisionary jurisdiction. 15. Final Orders a. The sentence of three (3) years imprisonment imposed on the applicant is hereby revised. The applicant shall serve the remaining period of his sentence under probation. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/17600/eng@2025-11-20 2

page 2 of 3

b. The applicant to be supported by prison authorities and family to sit for carpentry training examination. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED VIRTUALLY AT KABARNET THIS 20TH OF NOVEMBER 2025. …………….…………………… RACHEL NGETICH JUDGE In the presence of: Court Assistant – Elvis Ms.Bartilol for State Applicant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/17600/eng@2025-11-20 3

page 3 of 3