[2021] KEHC 5898 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant, having already appealed and obtained a reduction of his sentence from life imprisonment to 15 years, cannot seek further revision from the same court, as this would amount to the court sitting on appeal over its own or a concurrent court's decision. The Supreme Court's decision in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 5898 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Abdi Rashid Ismail; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 114 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- A Ali-Aroni
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Revision, Sexual Offences, Application of Supreme Court Precedent, Section 333 2 Criminal Procedure Code
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abdi Rashid Ismail
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to further reduction or revision of sentence after a previous appeal reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 15 years.
- 2 Whether the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic applies to the applicant's case.
- 3 Whether Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant, having already appealed and obtained a reduction of his sentence from life imprisonment to 15 years, cannot seek further revision from the same court, as this would amount to the court sitting on appeal over its own or a concurrent court's decision. The Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu does not apply to discretionary sentences for sexual offences, and Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code should have been raised at trial or on appeal, not at this stage. The application was therefore dismissed as unmeritorious and an abuse of the court's revision powers.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT GARISSA
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.114 OF 2019
ABDI RASHID ISMAIL...........................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.............................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Applicant herein was charged, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in Criminal Case No. 60 of 2014 in the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Garissa having been charged with 2 counts. Count I - Rape contrary to Section 3(1) (a) of the Sexual Offences Act and attempted rape contrary to Section 4 of the said Act. In the alternative to the main counts, he faced the charge of indecent assault.
2. The applicant pleaded guilty to the two main counts. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the main count. The sentence on the second count was left abeyance.
3. The applicant appealed to this court in Criminal Case No. 28 of 2016 and in reducing the sentence of life imprisonment Dulu J had this to say:
“The appellant from the facts on record used a lot of force in executing his mission. The facts clearly disclose cruel act by the appellant and that must have been the reason why the trial court imprisoned the appellant for life. However, in my view since the prosecution did not say that the appellant was a repeat offender and since the appellant pleaded for leniency, the sentence for life imprisonment was not justified………”
With the above sentiments Dulu J reduced the life sentence to 15 years.
4. In his application before court the applicant mitigates further against the 15 years sentence and cites Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the decision of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic Supreme Court Petition No. 16 of 2015.
5. The State has opposed the application by stating that the principle of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic Supreme Court (supra)is not applicable in this case.
6. This court totally agrees with the State that the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic Supreme Court(supra)is not applicable in this case. The trial court in this matter exercised discretion and meted out life imprisonment. This court in its wisdom reduced the same to 15 years imprisonment.
7. The applicant cannot now come back to the same court seeking for a revision of the sentence as reduced. To do so, is to ask this particular court to sit on appeal in a matter dealt with by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
8. In John Kagunda Kariuki v Republic [2019] eKLR Ngugi J stated inter alia:
“10. In the present case, the applicant’s appeal has already been heard by the High Court for a review of the sentence imposed. He is at liberty to make an argument for reduced sentence at the Court of Appeal.
11. Consequently, I reach the conclusion that the applicant cannot, in the circumstances of this case benefit from the doctrine propounded in Muruatetu case. I therefore dismiss the application for re-sentencing as unmeritorious.”
9. This court cannot agree more with the reasoning above, it is persuaded and will adopt the same approach.
10. Further Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable. The applicant ought to have raised the issue at trial or even on appeal where he sought reduction of sentence. He cannot raise it now. It is certainly an afterthought and an abuse of the revision powers of this court.
11. The application is therefore dismissed.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT GARISSA THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021.
....................
ALI-ARONI
JUDGE