Macharia v Republic (Criminal Revision E032 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7155 (KLR) (20 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7155 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA CRIMINAL REVISION E032 OF 2026 DR KAVEDZA, J MAY 20, 2026 BETWEEN GEDION KARIUKI MACHARIA ......................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant was charged and convicted for the ofience of full trial convicted on the ofience of stealing a motor vehicle contrary to section 268(1) as read with section 278A of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve six (6) years imprisonment. 2. He filed an appeal challenging his conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. E134 of 2024. On 30th June 2025, this court dismissed his appeal in its entirety. 3. The applicant has filed present application dated 26th March 2026 seeking sentence review. The grounds raised are that the time spent in custody has been sufficient rehabilitation. He has less than less than three (3) years left on his sentence and the court should consider him for the prison decongestion exercise. He is remorseful for the ofience committed. He urged the court to revise the sentence to a non-custodial sentence. 4. From the record, the applicant filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence which was heard and determined by this court. This court is therefore functus officio. The right forum for the applicant is the court of Appeal. 5. In the circumstances, the application is found to be lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2026. D. KAVEDZA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7155/eng@2026-05-20 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.