Mutangiri v Republic (Criminal Revision E066 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 19437 (KLR) (14 November 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19437 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KWALE CRIMINAL REVISION E066 OF 2025 F ANDAYI, J NOVEMBER 14, 2025 BETWEEN JOHN MUSYOKI MUTANGIRI ................................................................. ACCUSED AND THE REPUBLIC ................................................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. This matter is placed before this court for review of sentence. In my understanding the sentence review may be undertaken under Articles 50(2)(q) and 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution of Kenya, sections 362 and 364(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 75) Laws of Kenya in conjunction with the Probation of Offenders Act (Cap. 64) Laws of Kenya, section 3(1) of the Community Service Orders Act (Cap. 93) Laws of Kenya and pursuant to the Directions by the Honourable the Chief Justice in Her Memo dated 19/8/2024 on decongestion of prisons. 2. Article 50(2)(q) of the Constitution of Kenya: “ Every accused person has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right if convicted, to appeal to, or apply for review by, a higher Court as prescribed by the law.” 3. Article 165(6) and (7) constitution provides for the High Court supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts: “ (6) The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court. (7) For the purposes of clause (6), the High Court may call for the record of any proceedings before any subordinate court or person, body or authority referred https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19437/eng@2025-11-14 1
page 1 of 3
to in clause (6), and may make any order or give any direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice.” 4. Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 75) Laws of Kenya provide as follows: S. 362. The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court. S. 364(1)(b) In the case of a proceeding in a subordinate court the record of which has been called for or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may in the case of any other order other than an order of acquittal, alter or reverse the order. 5. Therefore, upon the Lower Court file being placed before this court for review of a custodial sentence it is required to satisfy itself of the propriety of the sentence passed to ensure that it is in conformity with the constitutional provisions and whether a probation order under the Probation of Offenders Act or a community service order under the Community Service Orders Act would be more appropriate and beneficial to the offender and the community at large, taking into account the views of the victim of the offence as well as the need to keep prisons decongested of inmates who may not benefit much from short custodial terms or who have sufficiently served a portion of their custodial term thereby satisfying the objective of reformation. 6. This court is aware that sentencing is at the discretion of the trial court and an appellate court should be slow to interfere unless there are factors that warrant such interference. 7. Fair administration of justice with regard to sentencing would entail among others, ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the crimes committed, so that, for instance, offenders are not committed to imprisonment terms for minor property offences, non-serious bodily injury assaults and the like offences, creating disturbances. It is in that spirit that Article 49(2) provides that a person shall not be remanded in custody for an offence if the offence is punishable by a fine only or by imprisonment for not more than six months. 8. The Lower Court file has been placed before me and I have perused the same and I find the following: a. Conviction: Count I: Church breaking contrary to Section 306(a) stealing contrary to Section 279(b) of the Penal Code. Particulars of offence: On the 12th October, 2025 at Majengo Mapya village in Lungalunga Location of Lungalunga Sub-County within Kwale County, broke and entered the building used as a church belonging to African Brotherhoon Church and stole a pastor’s dress, ream of plain papers, receipt book, baptism card, membership cards, a pack of staples and three stamps all valued at Kshs. 5,000/= property of the said church. Count II: Handling stolen goods contrary to Section 322(1)(2) of the Penal Code. Particulars of offence: On the 12th October, 2025 at Majengo Mapya village in Lungalunga Location of Lungalunga Sub-County within Kwale County, otherwise than in the course of stealing, dishonestly retained a pastor’s dress, ream of plain papers, receipt book, baptism card, https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19437/eng@2025-11-14 2
page 2 of 3
membership cards, a pack of staples and three stamps knowing or having reason to believe them to be stolen property. b. Plea: Guilty. c. Sentence: 1st limb - Fined Kshs. 10,000/= in default 3 months imprisonment. 2nd limb – Fined Kshs. 10,000/= in default 1 month. Sentence to run concurrently. d. Criminal record: First Offender 9. Pre-sentence report – Not favourable for a non-custodial sentence. The offender is a habitual thief and should re-integrate away from the community so that he can learn a lesson and reform from his antisocial behavior. 10. Sentence review report: Not called for. 11. Court: The offender has been unable to pay the fine imposed. According to the pre-sentence report, his family was willing to reintegrate him and assist him to reform. I believe the time he has served in custody is sufficient to help him understand the ramifications of committing crime. 12. Sentence reviewed to provide that in each case, the default term shall be equivalent to the imprisonment term already served. 13. Order: Offender is released from custody forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. 14. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED, SIGNED AND ISSUED ON THE JUDICIARY VIRTUAL PLATFORM TEAMS, THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 SIGNED BY/FOR: HON. JUSTICE ANDAYI W.F. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19437/eng@2025-11-14 3
page 3 of 3