Muriu v Republic (Revision Case E097 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 4383 (KLR) (23 February 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 4383 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAKURU REVISION CASE E097 OF 2025 SM MOHOCHI, J FEBRUARY 23, 2026 BETWEEN SAMSON NDUNGU MURIU ................................................................. APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Applicant was arrested on 5th August, 2025 and charged on 6th August, 2025 in Nakuru Criminal Case No. E1614 of 2025 with the of the offence of threatening to kill contrary to Section 223 (1) of the Penal Code. He pleaded guilty to the charge. 2. The Court was of the view that the Applicant was remorseful and a first offender. That although he had threatened his own sister, he needed discouraging from the conduct. Guided by those considerations, the Tial Court opted for a non-custodial sentence imposing a fine of Kshs. 40,000 in default the Applicant to serve 12 months imprisonment. 3. The Applicant moved this Court under Section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking revision of his sentence on the grounds that he was under psychiatric treatment and the utterances were made during a relapse of his condition. 4. That the family had amicably settled the matter with the complainant who is the Applicant’s sister and the case was to be withdraw but the process was interrupted when he pleaded guilty believing that such plea would lead to his discharge in line with the agreement he had with the Complainant. 5. That the Applicant is remorseful, cooperated with the Court process and the offence is non aggravated in nature. 6. I have looked at the proceedings in the lower Court and there is nothing to show that there was illegality or impropriety in the sentence by the Trial Court. The Applicant was sentenced on his own guilty https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4383/eng@2026-02-23 1
page 1 of 2
plea. The offence the Applicant was charged with attracts a ten-year jail term. A non-custodial sentence cannot be said to be excessive or harsh. 7. On the other hand, This Court is empowered to intervene where necessary to ensure the fair administration of justice. The Applicant was arrested on 5th August, 2025 and was arraigned on the 6th of August, 2025. 8. From the record there is an invoice Receipt No. RB-0137610 of Kshs. 38,357 paid on 15th August, 2025 paid on behalf of the Applicant about 10 days after his incarceration. 9. The Applicant made efforts to pay the fine he unfortunately shy of less than Kshs. 2000. He has also been in custody for six months. 10. The Constitution under Articles 165(6) and (7) provides; (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 purpose of clause (6), the High Court may call for the record of any proceedings before any court or person, body of authority referred to in clause (6), and may make any order or give any direction it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice.” 11. These provisions reinforce the statutory powers conferred under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They underscore the Court’s duty to call for and examine the record of criminal proceedings before subordinate Courts, and to make such orders or directions as may be necessary to correct irregularities, prevent injustice, and uphold fairness. 12. This Application goes beyond the Court satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the finding by the Tial Court. Revisionary jurisdiction is not limited to correcting illegality; it extends to ensuring fairness and proportionality in the administration of justice. 13. The Applicant has already served six months in custody, which is more than half of the default sentence. He has substantially complied with the fine, paying Kshs. 38,357, leaving only a small balance outstanding further imprisonment may amount to an unjust deprivation of liberty. 14. In the interests of justice, I order that the Applicant shall be deemed to have served sufficient punishment by virtue of the six months already spent in custody and the substantial payment of the fine. 15. The Applicant is forthwith released unless otherwise lawfully held. It is so ordered SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU ON THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MOHOCHI S. M JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4383/eng@2026-02-23 2
page 2 of 2