[2019] KEHC 5881 (KLR)
The court held that after delivering its judgment and substituting the sentence in accordance with the law, it no longer had jurisdiction to entertain further applications or alter its decision. The applicant's attempt to mitigate sentence post-judgment was therefore misconceived, as the court's mandate had expired....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 5881 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: DKN; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitui
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 24 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Incest Offence, Sexual Offences Act, Sentencing Jurisdiction, Mitigation of Sentence
- 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
DKN
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to reconsider or alter the sentence after judgment has been delivered and its mandate expired.
- 2 Whether the applicant's mitigation on health and personal grounds can be entertained post-judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that after delivering its judgment and substituting the sentence in accordance with the law, it no longer had jurisdiction to entertain further applications or alter its decision. The applicant's attempt to mitigate sentence post-judgment was therefore misconceived, as the court's mandate had expired. The application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for mitigation of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITUI
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 24 OF 2019
DKN.......................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.......................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. DKNappealed against the decision of the trial Court which convicted him for the offence of Incestcontrary to Section 20(1)of the Sexual Offences Act.This Court considered the Appeal, confirmed the conviction, set aside the sentence imposed and substituted it with a minimum sentence provided for the offence, fifteen (15) years imprisonment.
2. On 23rd April, 2019he filed a document mitigating on sentence on the grounds that his health has deteriorated after he got affected by diabetes, high blood pressure and stomach ulcers; he is 89 years old; and the woman he married caused the Complainant to come up with the allegations and ran away with children after selling off his piece of land.
3. The mandate of this Court expired after delivery of the Judgment dated 7th June, 2018. Having complied with the law, it is not seized of the jurisdiction to reach a contrary decision.
4. Consequently, the Application is misconceived. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
5. It is so ordered.
Dated, Signedand Deliveredat Kituithis 19thday of June,2019.
L. N. MUTENDE
JUDGE