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

Mike Ordijhe v Republic

Ordijhe v Republic (Criminal Revision E114 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11244 (KLR) (22 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11244 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIBERA CRIMINAL REVISION E114 OF 2026 DR KAVEDZA, J JULY 22, 2026 BETWEEN MIKE ORDIJHE ....................................................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant was charged and convicted for the ofience of trafficking in narcotic drugs contrary to section 4 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act No. 4 of 1994. On 17th October 2023, he was sentenced to serve 30 years imprisonment. In addition, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 32,400,000 in default to serve 1-year imprisonment. 2. He has filed the present notice of motion seeking revision of sentence. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. The averments made are that he sufiers from chronic back pain and needs specialised treatment. He is a foreigner with no source of income and cannot pay the fine imposed by the court. Since his incarceration, he has undergone rehabilitation. He urged the court to revise the sentence imposed. 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/2026/11244/eng@2026-07-22 1

page 1 of 2

Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 22ND 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/2026/11244/eng@2026-07-22 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.