Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Simon Kipisu Makanga v Republic

Makanga v Republic (Criminal Petition E038 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7834 (KLR) (8 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7834 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA CRIMINAL PETITION E038 OF 2026 DR KAVEDZA, J JUNE 8, 2026 BETWEEN SIMON KIPISU MAKANGA .................................................................. APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant was charged with and convicted of the ofience of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act, No. 3 of 2006. He was sentenced to serve twenty-five (25) years' imprisonment. On appeal, this court upheld his conviction and sentence. A second appeal before the court of appeal was partially allowed to the extent that the sentence was reduced to eighteen (18) years. 2. The applicant has now moved this court through the present application seeking a review of the sentence. His principal contention is that the court failed to comply with the provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by not adequately taking into account the period he spent in remand custody. He therefore urges the court to further review and reduce his sentence. 3. The court has carefully examined the record of the trial court as well as the judgments of both the first appellate court and the Court of Appeal. The record demonstrates that the period spent by the applicant in remand custody was expressly considered during the sentencing process. The issue was also addressed by the appellate courts in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed. 4. In the circumstances, the applicant has not demonstrated any error, omission, or exceptional circumstance warranting further interference with the sentence as presently constituted. The court is therefore satisfied that the requirements of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code were duly complied with. 5. Consequently, the application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7834/eng@2026-06-08 1

page 1 of 2

It is so ordered. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. D. KAVEDZA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7834/eng@2026-06-08 2

page 2 of 2

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.