Wanjiru alias Jonti v Republic (Criminal Revision E123 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10664 (KLR) (Crim) (14 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10664 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CRIMINAL CRIMINAL REVISION E123 OF 2026 DR KAVEDZA, J JULY 14, 2026 BETWEEN JOHN MUNGAI WANJIRU ALIAS JONTI .......................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant was jointly charged with another not before this court for the ofience of trafficking in narcotic drugs contrary to section 4 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act, no. 3 of 1994. He sentenced to serve 10 years imprisonment. In addition, he sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 500,000 each in default to serve 12 months imprisonment. He filed an appeal challenging his conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. E216 of 2022. The appeal was dismissed by this court in its entirety. 2. The Applicant has filed the present application seeking revision of sentence. He contends that he has undergone rehabilitation while in custody, has demonstrated good conduct, and that the period already served is sufficient punishment. On that basis, he urges the court to reduce or revise the sentence imposed. 3. I have considered the application, the grounds advanced in support, the record of the trial court and the applicable law. Sentence is a matter of judicial discretion, and an appellate or revision court will only interfere where the sentence is illegal, manifestly excessive, based on a wrong principle, or where the trial court overlooked a material consideration. The Applicant has not demonstrated that any of these circumstances exist. Rehabilitation, though a relevant sentencing objective, does not of itself constitute a sufficient basis for reviewing an otherwise lawful sentence. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10664/eng@2026-07-14 1
page 1 of 2
4. The sentence imposed was within the prescribed law and proportionate to the gravity of the ofience. I therefore find no basis to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion. 5. Accordingly, the application is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY 2026 ______________ D. KAVEDZA JUDGE In the presence of: Applicant Present Mutuma for the Respondent Karimi Court Assistant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10664/eng@2026-07-14 2
page 2 of 2