Mudi v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E198 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 18593 (KLR) (16 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 18593 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION E198 OF 2025 DR KAVEDZA, J DECEMBER 16, 2025 BETWEEN KENNEDY IMBOHA MUDI .................................................................. APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant was charged and after full trial convicted by the subordinate court for the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act No 3 of 2006. He was sentenced to serve 20 years’ imprisonment. On appeal before this court, the sentence was reduced to ten (10) years imprisonment. 2. He has filed the present application seeking revision of sentence. The grounds raised are that he is the sole breadwinner in his family who have suffered since his incarceration. He is remorseful for the offence committed. He has undergone rehabilitation. He urged the court to revise the sentence of the trial court to a non-custodial sentence. 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 I find no good cause or reason to revise the sentence. The application dismissed. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 _____________ D. KAVEDZA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18593/eng@2025-12-16 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.