Charles Muhia Munoru v Republic

Munoru v Republic (Criminal Revision E113 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11221 (KLR) (22 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11221 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA CRIMINAL REVISION E113 OF 2026 DR KAVEDZA, J JULY 22, 2026 BETWEEN CHARLES MUHIA MUNORU .............................................................. APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant was charged with two counts of ofiences: Robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code and Rape contrary to section 11(A) of the Sexual Offences Act, No. 3 of 2006. After a full trial, he was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to forty (40) years imprisonment in Count I and ten (10) years imprisonment in Count II. The sentences were to run concurrently. He filed an appeal before this court in Criminal Appeal No. E068 of 2024 where the sentence of forty (40) years imprisonment imposed in Count I was substituted with a sentence of twenty (20) years imprisonment. The sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment imposed in count II was maintained. 2. By the present application dated 26th June 2026, the applicant seeks sentence review. He contends that he has undergone rehabilitation while in custody, maintained good conduct, and that the period already served constitutes sufficient punishment. He therefore prays for a reduction of the sentence. 3. I have considered the application, the record and the applicable law. Sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion, and this court will interfere only where the sentence is unlawful, manifestly excessive, founded on a wrong principle, or where the trial court failed to consider a material factor. The applicant has demonstrated none of these grounds. While rehabilitation is an important sentencing objective, it does not, without more, justify interference with a lawful sentence. 4. The sentence imposed was within the statutory limits and was proportionate to the seriousness of the ofiences. I find no basis for interfering with the trial court's exercise of discretion. 5. Accordingly, the application lacks merit and is dismissed. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11221/eng@2026-07-22 1

page 1 of 2