[2020] KEHC 1513 (KLR)
The High Court held that it was functus officio in relation to the applicant's case, having already determined the appeal on resentencing and ordered that the applicant's sentence run from the date of arrest. The doctrine of functus officio precludes the court from revisiting or altering its previous decision,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 1513 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Alex Muthini Musya; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 36 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Second Sentence Reduction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- BC Koech
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Sentencing Review, Functus Officio, Resentencing, Jurisdiction, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Alex Muthini Musya
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Second Sentence Reduction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review or reduce the applicant's sentence after having already determined an appeal on resentencing.
- 2 Whether the doctrine of functus officio bars the court from entertaining the current application for sentence reduction.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it was functus officio in relation to the applicant's case, having already determined the appeal on resentencing and ordered that the applicant's sentence run from the date of arrest. The doctrine of functus officio precludes the court from revisiting or altering its previous decision, except for correction of clerical errors or where review is expressly permitted by law. Since the applicant's current application sought a further reduction of sentence after the court had already discharged its duties, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application. The applicant's remedy, if any, lies with the Court of Appeal.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The applicant's application filed on 10.3.2020 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
Coram: D. K. Kemei - J
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2020
ALEX MUTHINI MUSYA.........................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..............................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Alex Muthini Musya, the Applicant herein was charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 295 as read with section 296(2) of the Penal Code. He was convicted and sentenced by the trial court to serve death sentence.
2. The death sentence was later quashed and the file remitted to the trial court for resentencing. Upon resentencing, he was resentenced to serve 25 years’ imprisonment from the date of the decision. He was aggrieved by the decision of the trial court and appealed to this court seeking that the court invoke Article 50(2)(p) of the Constitution, review his sentence and that he be granted a lenient sentence. The appeal was partly allowed to the extent that the applicant’s sentence should run from the date of arrest namely 10. 10. 2014.
3. The Applicant has now filed a second application before this court where he seeks that his sentence be reduced to the time served.
4. From the import of the functus officio doctrine this court cannot consider the application. Once a court becomes functus officio, the only orders it can grant are review orders which are an exception to the functus officio doctrine. The Supreme Court in Raila Odinga & 2 Others v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 3 others [2013] eKLR stated that:
“A court is functus when it has performed all its duties in a particular case. The doctrine does not prevent the court from correcting clerical errors nor does it prevent a judicial change of mind even when a decision has been communicated to the parties. Proceedings are only fully concluded, and the court functus, when its judgment or order has been perfected. The purpose of the doctrine is to provide finality. Once proceedings are finally concluded, the court cannot review or alter its decision; any challenge to its ruling or adjudication must be taken to a higher court if that right is available.”
From the foregoing, it is clear that this court is no longer seized with jurisdiction to entertain the applicant in view of the fact that it has already discharged its duties as required by law. This court had earlier handled the application in which the death sentence was quashed and applicant directed to go for resentencing before the trial court. The applicant was duly resentenced and moved back to this court on appeal against the resentence which appeal was duly determined and that the applicant’s sentence was ordered to commence from the 10. 10. 2014. This court thereafter became functus officio having discharged its duty. The remaining option is for the applicant to proceed to the Court of Appeal for redress.
5. In the upshot the Applicant’s application filed on 10. 3.2020 lacks merit. The same is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 26th day of November, 2020.
D. K. Kemei
Judge