[2013] KEHC 3856 (KLR)
The court held that once the High Court has exercised its revisionary jurisdiction and rendered a decision, it cannot subsequently entertain an appeal in the same matter as this would amount to sitting on appeal against its own decision. The appeal, even if filed before the revision ruling, was overtaken by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3856 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Boniface Hamisi Obeda; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 108 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Stealing Offence, Sentencing Principles, Revision Jurisdiction, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences
- 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
Boniface Hamisi Obeda
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal after a revision decision has been made in the same matter.
- 2 Whether the sentences imposed should run concurrently or consecutively.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that once the High Court has exercised its revisionary jurisdiction and rendered a decision, it cannot subsequently entertain an appeal in the same matter as this would amount to sitting on appeal against its own decision. The appeal, even if filed before the revision ruling, was overtaken by the revision proceedings and decision. The court thus lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal, and the appellant's request for concurrent sentences could not be entertained. The appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Kakamega
Criminal Appeal 108 of 2010 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif]
(Appeal arising from the Chief Magistrate’s court Kakamega in Criminal
Case No. 541 of 2010 [P. N. ARERI, RM] dated 4th May, 2010)
BONIFACE HAMISI OBEDA ……………………………………………. APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………….……………………………………………… RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty to five (5) counts of stealing contrary to Section 275 of the Penal Code.
After he made his plea on mitigation that he was a student and the prosecution stated that he was a first offender, a Probation Officer’s report was ordered by the court.
The Probation Officer stated in the report that the appellant was not fit for a non custodial sentence. The court then proceeded to sentence him to serve three (3) years imprisonment in each count, and the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. This was a total of 15 years imprisonment. He was granted 14 days to appeal.
From the record, he filed a memorandum of appeal in person from prison on 26th May 2010. However, by that time, the matter had already reached the Judge on revision.
On 15th June, 2010 a REVISION decision herein was made by Lenaola, J. which concluded thus –
“I will therefore revise the sentences as follows –
i)On count 1 – three years imprisonment;
ii)On counts 2, 3 and 4 - three years imprisonment (all to run concurrently therefore three years in total).
iii)On count 5 – three years imprisonment.
In total therefore, the applicant shall serve nine years imprisonment instead of fifteen years imprisonment as earlier ordered.”
Because the appeal filed by the appellant was already on record, it was fixed for hearing. It came up for hearing before me on 14th February, 2013.
The appellant submitted on appeal that he was aware that Lenaola, J., had reviewed the sentences. He however, insisted that he wanted that all the sentences be made to run concurrently. The learned State Counsel Ms Ngovi acknowledged that the sentences had already been revised by Lenaola, J. but left the matter to the decision of the court.
Having considered this matter, I am of the view that the appeal herein is for dismissal. Though an appeal appears to have been filed before a ruling was made by the High Court on revision, the file had by the time of filing appeal already been placed before the Judge to exercise revision powers, and the Judge did so.
The powers of the High Court in revision under section 364 are similar to those conferred on the same court on appeal under Section 354, 357 and 358 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In effect, the appeal to this same High Court, even assuming it was filed before the revision ruling was made, was overtaken by events once the decision in revision was made. Entertaining the appeal at this stage will be like sitting on appeal against the decision in revision by the learned Judge in the same matter. I do not have that jurisdiction to sit on appeal on the decision of Lenaola, J. in revision. Consequently, this appeal cannot succeed.
In conclusion therefore, the appeal has no merits. I dismiss the appeal.
Dated and delivered at Kakamega this 18th day of April, 2013
George Dulu
JUDGE
[if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif";} </style> <![endif]