Said v Republic (Criminal Revision E172 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7509 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7509 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL REVISION E172 OF 2025 WM KAGENDO., J MAY 15, 2026 BETWEEN JUMA SAID ............................................................................................... APPLICANT AND THE REPUBLIC ................................................................................... RESPONDENT RULING Background 1. The applicant, Juma Said, was convicted on his own plea of guilty on three counts. The first count was assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to section 251 of the Penal Code. The second count was stealing contrary to section 268 as read with section 275 of the Penal Code. The third count was creating a disturbance in a manner likely to cause breach of peace contrary to section 95(1)(b) of the Penal Code. 2. Upon conviction, the trial court sentenced the applicant to a term of imprisonment, with the sentences on the respective counts ordered to run concurrently from 26th November 2024. 3. The matter is before this court by way of revision, arising from the Shimo la Tewa Prison decongestion programme. Sentence History and Post-Conviction Conduct 4. The court has considered the record of the lower court, the sentence report dated 29th July 2025, and the updated prison rehabilitation assessment placed before this court. 5. Initially, the sentence report raised concerns regarding reintegration, noting resistance from the complainant (the applicant’s mother), village elders, and members of the community, who expressed unwillingness to receive the applicant back home. For that reason, a non-custodial recommendation was not initially made. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7509/eng@2026-05-15 1
page 1 of 3
6. However, subsequent reports and the applicant’s conduct over the past one year of incarceration paint a different picture. The applicant has now served approximately one year in custody and has demonstrated marked behavioural change. He has participated in prison rehabilitation programmes, shown remorse for his actions, and has maintained a record of discipline within the correctional facility. 7. The Probation Officer’s updated assessment indicates that the applicant has internalised the lessons from his incarceration, has expressed genuine remorse, and is now considered suitable for structured reintegration under supervision. Analysis 8. The jurisdiction of this court on revision is exercised to correct impropriety, illegality, or to ensure that justice is served in light of all relevant circumstances, including post-sentencing developments. 9. While the offences committed are serious, particularly the offence of assault against a family member, the principle of sentencing in Kenya is not solely retributive but also restorative and rehabilitative. The court is required to consider whether continued incarceration remains necessary in light of the offender’s reformation and the interests of society. 10. In this case, the applicant has served a substantial portion of his sentence and has demonstrated tangible evidence of reform. The purpose of punishment—deterrence, rehabilitation, and reintegration—has, to a significant extent, been achieved during the period already served. 11. The court is therefore persuaded that continued incarceration is no longer necessary and that a structured non-custodial sentence will better serve the interests of justice, rehabilitation, and public safety. Determination 12. Accordingly, the court finds that this is an appropriate case for revision of sentence. Orders 13. The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the applicant is hereby set aside. 14. The applicant is hereby ordered to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. 15. The applicant is placed under probation supervision for a period of two (2) years, under strict supervision of the Probation Officer and the area Chief. 16. The applicant shall:Report to the Probation Officer as directed;Undergo any counselling, rehabilitation, or reintegration programme prescribed;Maintain good behaviour and keep peace with all persons, including the complainant and community members;Not commit any further offence during the probation period. 17. In the event of breach of any probation conditions, the Probation Officer shall be at liberty to move the court for appropriate orders, including re- sentencing. Conclusion 18. The court is satisfied that the applicant has, over the course of one year in custody, learnt a painful but necessary lesson. He has demonstrated remorse and willingness to reform. Justice in this case is best served not by continued incarceration, but by supervised reintegration into society. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2026. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7509/eng@2026-05-15 2
page 2 of 3
HON. LADY JUSTICE W. K. MICHENIJUDGE SIGNED BY/FOR: HON. LADY JUSTICE WENDY MICHENI https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7509/eng@2026-05-15 3
page 3 of 3