[2021] KEHC 7177 (KLR)
The court found that the issue of whether the time spent in custody should be considered in the applicant's sentence had already been conclusively determined in a previous application (Misc. Criminal Application No. 20 of 2019) by a court of competent jurisdiction. The doctrine of res judicata therefore applied,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 7177 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Antony Ndegwa Ngari; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition E001 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction (res judicata)
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Time Spent in Custody, Res Judicata
- 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
Antony Ndegwa Ngari
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petition for review of sentence is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to consider the time spent in custody in light of a previous determination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issue of whether the time spent in custody should be considered in the applicant's sentence had already been conclusively determined in a previous application (Misc. Criminal Application No. 20 of 2019) by a court of competent jurisdiction. The doctrine of res judicata therefore applied, barring the court from entertaining the current petition. The form of the current application (petition versus chamber summons) did not alter the substance of the matter, as the issue had already been adjudicated. Consequently, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the petition and dismissed it accordingly.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction (res judicata)
Orders
- The petition is hereby dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
PETITION NO. E001 OF 2021
ANTONY NDEGWA NGARI......PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This court is invited to consider an application by the petitioner herein. The same was filed on 11. 01. 2021 and the petitioner seeks review of the sentence he is serving and in doing so, the court is asked to take into consideration the time spent in custody.
2. The petitioner averred that he was convicted of the offence of murder contrary to Section 204 of the Penal Code and sentenced to serve forty (40) years imprisonment in Embu High Court Criminal Case No. 16 of 2009. That the said sentence was substituted with a fifteen (15) years imprisonment by the Court of Appeal at Nyeri in Nyeri Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2012 and that he filed a Misc. Application No. 20 of 2019 which was dismissed by this Court. He averred that he was arrested and placed in lawful custody on 18. 07. 2009 and prayed this court to take the period he spent in custody into consideration and the same be deducted from the sentence of fifteen (15) years. Further that, this court do make an order that the imposed sentence does run from the date of arrest (18. 07. 2009) and not from 27. 06. 2012 when he was convicted.
3. When the petition came up for hearing, the petitioner made oral submissions and wherein he prayed that the time he spent in custody from 18. 07. 2009 to 27. 06. 2012 be taken into account. Ms. Mati for the respondent opposed the application on the basis that the same is res judicata as a similar petition (Petition No. 20 of 2019) was heard and determined by this court.
4. I have considered the petition herein, and the rival submissions by the parties. As I have observed above, the petitioner prayed for the court to consider the period he spent in custody and the sentence be re-computed. The petition is premised on the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code whose proviso mandates the sentencing court to take into consideration the time spent in custody in computing the sentence where the person being sentenced has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody. (See clauses 7. 10 and 7. 11 and the Court of Appeal’s decisions in Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another vs. Republic [2018] eKLR and Bethwel Wilson Kibor vs. Republic [2009] eKLR).
5. However, before considering the merits of the petition, I take note of the submissions by Ms. Mati to the effect that the petition herein is res judicata as a similar petition (Petition No.20 of 2019) was heard and determined by this court.
6. It is trite that a court of law cannot proceed and adjudicate on an issue which is res judicata. As such the same being a jurisdictional issue ought to be determined in limine. The question which needs to be determined at the inception, therefore, is whether the application herein is res judicata.
7. I have certainly perused the court record and I note that the petitioner herein filed a chamber summons in this court on 20. 08. 2019 being Misc. Criminal Application No. 20 of 2019 and wherein he sought similar orders as the ones sought in the instant petition. The said application was heard on merit by Hon. Muchemi, J. and a ruling thereto delivered on 8. 06. 2020 wherein the Learned Judge found that the application was unmerited as she did not have powers to review the decisions of the Court of Appeal.
8. It is therefore clear that the Learned Judge in his judgment conclusively adjudicated on the issue as to taking into account the time spent in custody. That being the case, it is my view that the issue is res judicata and this court does not have jurisdiction to determine the instant petition.
9. I note that the petitioner has come to court by way of a petition whereas the earlier application was a chamber summons. However, the form of pleadings before me notwithstanding, the issue at hand herein was heard and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction and as such the same is res judicata.
10. In the end, I find that this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition. (See the owners of Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR). The petition is hereby dismissed.
11. It is so ordered
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY, 2021
L. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
…………………………..………………………..for the Petitioner
…………………………………………………..for the Respondent