Njuguna v Republic (Criminal Revision E007 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11637 (KLR) (Crim) (20 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11637 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CRIMINAL CRIMINAL REVISION E007 OF 2026 AM MUTETI, J MAY 20, 2026 BETWEEN IAN NJUGUNA ........................................................................................ APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant in this matter moved this court under the Provisions of Section 333(2), 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code as read with Article 165 (6) & (7) of the Constitution. 2. The applicant urged this court to call for the record of the Lower Court, examine the same and satisfy itself as to correctness, legality and propriety of the sentences imposed against him. 3. The court called for the Lower court records in Milimani CM’s Court Criminal Case No. E462/2025 and E427/2025 in which the applicant had been charged with ofiences relating to Insurance Fraud under Section 204 B (1) (b) as read with 204 B (5) of the Insurance Act Cap 487 Laws of Kenya 4. In both files, the applicant pleaded guilty and when he appeared before this court during the hearing of the revision, he was categorical that he was not challenging conviction in both files but was interested in the review of sentences. 5. In respect of Chief Magistrate’s Criminal Case No. E462/2025 the applicant was sentenced as follows: i. Count I : Kshs. 150,000 in default 1 year imprisonment ii. Count II: Kshs. 30,000 in default 6 months imprisonment iii. Count III: Kshs. 30,000 in default 6 months imprisonment https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11637/eng@2026-05-20 1
page 1 of 3
6. The court has reviewed file Number E462/2025 and taking into account the seriousness of the charges the applicant faced, the sentences imposed against the applicant were lawful and manifestly lenient. 7. The court does not find any form of illegality, impropriety, incorrectness or irregularity in the sentencing to warrant altering the same. The court ordered that the sentences run concurrently and shall remain so. 8. In Milimani CM’s Criminal Case No. E427/2025 the applicant was charged with Ofienses of Insurance Fraud, Making a False Document and Attempt to obtain money by false pretense. 9. The applicant pleaded guilty to the charges and was convicted. 10. The trial court sentenced him as follows: i. Count I : Kshs. 100,000 in default 2 years imprisonment ii. Count II : Kshs. 10,000 in default 2 years imprisonment iii. Count III: Kshs. 100,000 in default 2 years imprisonment iv. Count IV: Kshs. 100,000 in default 1 year imprisonment v. Count V: Kshs. 200,000 in default 2 years imprisonment All sentences were to run concurrently. 11. On the face of it, the learned Honorable magistrate appears not to have taken into account the provisions of Section 28 (2) of the Penal Code which states: “ (2) In the absence of express provisions in any written law relating thereto, the term of imprisonment or detention under the Detention Camps Act (Cap. 91) ordered by a court in respect of the non-payment of any sum adjudged to be paid for costs under section 32 or compensation under section 31 or in respect of the non-payment of a fine or of any sum adjudged to be paid under the provisions of any written law shall be such term as in the opinion of the court will satisfy the justice of the case, but shall not exceed in any such case the maximum fixed by the following scale— Amount Maximum period Not exceeding Sh. 500……………………………….14 days Exceeding Sh. 500 but not exceeding Sh.2,500 ……1 month Exceeding Sh. 2,500 but not exceeding Sh. 15,000… 3 months Exceeding Sh. 15,000 but not exceeding Sh.50,000… 6 months Exceeding Sh. 50,000………………………………………….12 months” 11. The learned Honorable magistrate having decided to impose a fine and an imprisonment term in default, he ought not have given a default imprisonment term exceeding 12 months. To that extent this court finds that the default order for an imprisonment term of 2 years in counts I, II, III and V in Milimani Chief Magistrates Criminal Case No. E427/ 2025 was an error of law and amounted to an illegal sentence. 12. The court shall thus interfere with the sentences in E427/2025 to alter the period of imprisonment in default to read 12 months imprisonment in place of 2 years imprisonment. 13. The revision therefore succeeds in respect of file No. E427 of 2025 and the others that this court makes are as follows; https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11637/eng@2026-05-20 2
page 2 of 3
11. a. In Milimani CM’s Criminal Case No. E462/2025 the sentence of 1 Year in default of payment of the fine is the maximum sentence the applicant shall serve in the matter since by the time he was convicted he was already serving sentence thus there was no pretrial detention in respect of that matter to be discounted from the sentence. b. As for E427/2025 the sentence of 2 years in default of the payment of a fine in all the Counts is revised to 12 months in line with Section 28(2) of the Penal code. c. The period of 12 months in respect of file number E427 shall be computed from 14/ 8 /2025 being the date of arrest. d. For the avoidance of doubt the applicant shall serve the term of imprisonment in each file separately since the two files are distinct and independent of each other. The court entertained the joint revision simply for purposes of expediency and in consideration of the provisions of Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2026. A. M. MUTETI JUDGE In the presence of: Court Assistant: Habiba Applicant in person Mogere for the Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11637/eng@2026-05-20 3
page 3 of 3