[2020] KEHC 3470 (KLR)
The court found the application incompetent because the reliefs sought in the application and the supporting affidavit were inconsistent, making it impossible for the court to determine the applicant's true request. Furthermore, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a sentence it had already upheld on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 3470 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Daniel Oluoch Obudho; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 31 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Pauper Application
- 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
Daniel Oluoch Obudho
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can review a sentence it previously upheld on appeal.
- 2 Whether the application is competent given the variance between the application and the supporting affidavit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found the application incompetent because the reliefs sought in the application and the supporting affidavit were inconsistent, making it impossible for the court to determine the applicant's true request. Furthermore, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a sentence it had already upheld on appeal. As a result, the application was dismissed and the file closed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- The file is closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT SIAYA
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2020
DANIEL OLUOCH OBUDHO......APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Applicant’s application and supporting affidavit are at variance.
2. He applies for sentence review under Articles 23 and 50(2)(q) of the Constitution but the affidavit in support seeks for leave to appeal out time and as a pauper.
3. The court cannot tell what the Applicant seeks from court. The application is incompetent as this court cannot review sentence which it upheld on appeal.
4. Application dismissed.
5. File closed.
6. Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and Delivered at Siaya this 6th Day of July 2020
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE