[2008] KEHC 3940 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 3940 (KLR)

The court held that the applicant, having been properly convicted and sentenced within the statutory limits for the offences of forgery and obtaining by false pretences, had not demonstrated any illegality, incorrectness, or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial court. The applicant's preference for imprisonment over fines and his request for concurrent sentences did not constitute grounds for revision. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the revisionary jurisdiction is not a substitute for appeal, especially where the applicant had a right of appeal but failed to exercise it. The application for revision was therefore dismissed as unfounded.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 3940 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Charles Gitau; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
5 March 2008
Case Number
Criminal Revision 482 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
JB Ojwang
Legal Topics
Revision Jurisdiction, Sentencing Principles, Forgery, Obtaining by False Pretences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Revision Jurisdiction Sentencing Principles Forgery Obtaining by False Pretences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Gitau

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court can entertain a revision application where the applicant had a right of appeal but did not exercise it.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal, improper, or excessive.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court was obligated to impose concurrent sentences or consider the applicant's financial incapacity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant, having been properly convicted and sentenced within the statutory limits for the offences of forgery and obtaining by false pretences, had not demonstrated any illegality, incorrectness, or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial court. The applicant's preference for imprisonment over fines and his request for concurrent sentences did not constitute grounds for revision. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the revisionary jurisdiction is not a substitute for appeal, especially where the applicant had a right of appeal but failed to exercise it. The application for revision was therefore dismissed as unfounded.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.