[2021] KEHC 678 (KLR)
The court held that in the absence of any evidential record demonstrating the period spent in remand custody, the petitioner's claim under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code could not be sustained. The court emphasized that assertions without supporting documentation do not meet the evidentiary threshold...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 678 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Ali Kirao Mkare Wanje; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition E030 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Petition for Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- Petition dismissed.
- Judges
- DB Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Review of Sentence, Remand Custody Credit, Fundamental Rights, Fair Trial, Appeals Process
- 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
Ali Kirao Mkare Wanje
Petitioner
Director of Public Prosecution
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Petition for Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to a review of sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for time spent in remand custody.
- 2 Whether the petition raises justiciable issues under Article 50(6) of the Constitution warranting interference with the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that in the absence of any evidential record demonstrating the period spent in remand custody, the petitioner's claim under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code could not be sustained. The court emphasized that assertions without supporting documentation do not meet the evidentiary threshold required for review. Furthermore, the court found that the issues raised under Article 50(6) of the Constitution did not present new and compelling evidence to justify interference with the sentence, especially since the conviction and sentence had already been upheld by the appellate courts. Consequently, the petition lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Petition dismissed.
Orders
- The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
- The sentence as previously confirmed on appeal stands.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MALINDI
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITON NO. E030 OF 2021
(From Original Criminal Case No. 411 of 2006 at Malindi CMs Court)
THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 (SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION AND
PROTECTION FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF AN INDIVIDUAL
HIGH COURT PRACTICE RULES 2013
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 22 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 23 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
27,28,48, 50, 258 AND 259 OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 220 (a) OF THE PENAL CODE
BETWEEN
ALI KIRAO MKARE WANJE................................................................... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION............................................RESPONDENT
Coram: Hon. Justice R. Nyakundi
The Petitioner in person
Mr. Mwangi for the state
R U L I N G
The petitioner has moved this Court vide Petition dated 31. 3.2021 seeking a relief on review of sentence of 15 years imprisonment for the offence of attempted murder contrary to Section 220 of the Penal Code.
The review on sentence is expressed to be brought under Article of the Constitution 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 48 , 50, 258 and 259 of the Constitution.
The petitioner has accurately pointed out that the review on sentence is based on Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which deals with the trial Court taking into account the pre-conviction period spent in remand custody.
From the record, the petitioner aggrieved with the conviction and sentence of 15 years imprisonment preferred an appeal to the first and second appeals Courts. The findings of the two Courts was synonymous that the appeals on conviction and sentence lacked merit. It becomes significant for this Court to consider whether the petitioner’s petition pertinent to the Court’s Judgment aware of the provisions of Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The answer to such matters, lean towards this Court to appreciate the proceedings before the trial Court. There is no such record provided to the Court in support of that ground under Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Those averments remains an assertion in absence of the record. In terms of the Law, it’s the record which provides insight into the issue. Leaning towards judicial avoidance of opening a pandoras box in a petition which lacks evidential material, this Court will be slow to interfere with the decision on sentence.
The justiciability of this question raised by the petitioner under Article 50 (6) (a) and (b) of the Constitution is suspect as its entrenched in providing substantial and compelling evidence. That disturbing factor by the petitioner lacks merit as herein aforesaid.
As a consequence, the petition fails, the petitioner’s earlier confirmed sentence on appeal carries the day.
Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI THIS 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
..........................
R. NYAKUNDI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
1. Mr. Mwangi for the State