Okari v Republic (Criminal Revision E005 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 6689 (KLR) (29 April 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6689 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NYAMIRA CRIMINAL REVISION E005 OF 2026 TW CHERERE, J APRIL 29, 2026 BETWEEN PATROBA OKARI ................................................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Applicant, Patroba Okari, was charged on 24th April 2026 before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Manga with the offence of dealing in alcoholic drinks without a licence contrary to Section 7(1)(b) as read with Section 34(c) of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act No. 4 of 2010. The particulars disclose that he was found in possession of 8 litres of chang’aa packed in containers without a licence. 2. The record shows that the charge was read to the Applicant in a language he understood, whereupon he unequivocally pleaded guilty. He was accordingly convicted on his own plea. In mitigation, he stated that he was a first offender and a parent of young children. 3. Upon considering the mitigation, the learned trial magistrate sentenced the Applicant to serve fortyfive (45) days’ imprisonment. The exhibits were ordered destroyed. 4. The Applicant now approaches this Court by way of revision seeking that the custodial sentence be set aside and substituted with a fine or a non-custodial sentence. The grounds advanced, as seen in the application and supporting affidavit, are that he is a first offender, a family man of modest means, and that the sentence is harsh in the circumstances. 5. This Court’s jurisdiction in revision is anchored under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is limited to satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of the finding, sentence, or order, and the regularity of the proceedings. It is not an avenue for rehearing the matter or substituting the Court’s discretion merely because it would have reached a different conclusion. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6689/eng@2026-04-29 1
page 1 of 2
6. Section 34 of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act provides for a penalty of a fine not exceeding KES. 50,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding nine (9) months, or both, for a first offender. The sentence imposed herein—forty-five (45) days’ imprisonment—falls well within the statutory limits. 7. I have carefully reviewed the proceedings. The plea was properly taken, the conviction was lawful, and there is nothing to suggest that the trial court acted on any wrong principle. The record further shows that the learned magistrate expressly took into account the Applicant’s mitigation, including the fact that he was a first offender, but nonetheless considered that a deterrent sentence was warranted given the nature of the offence and the quantity of the alcoholic drink involved. 8. The mere fact that the Applicant would have preferred a non-custodial sentence does not, without more, demonstrate illegality, impropriety, or irregularity. Sentencing remains a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not interfere unless that discretion was not judiciously exercised. 9. Accordingly, I find no merit in the application for revision dated 27th April 2026 and it is hereby declined. The conviction and sentence are upheld. DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 WAMAE.T. W. CHERERE JUDGE Appearances Court Assistant - Terere/Ruth Applicant - Absent For the DPP - Mr. Chirchir (SADPP) https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6689/eng@2026-04-29 2
page 2 of 2