[2022] KEHC 2911 (KLR)
The court held that the Supreme Court's clarification in the 2021 Muruatetu decision expressly limited the applicability of its earlier 2017 decision to mandatory sentences for murder under section 204 of the Penal Code. Since the applicant was convicted of defilement under section 8(1)(3) of the Sexual Offences...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 2911 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dennis Okello Mateba; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 120 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- application dismissed for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Mandatory Sentencing, Sentence Review
- 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
Dennis Okello Mateba
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu apply to mandatory sentences for defilement under the Sexual Offences Act?
- 2 Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review the applicant's sentence in light of the Supreme Court's directions?
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Supreme Court's clarification in the 2021 Muruatetu decision expressly limited the applicability of its earlier 2017 decision to mandatory sentences for murder under section 204 of the Penal Code. Since the applicant was convicted of defilement under section 8(1)(3) of the Sexual Offences Act, the Muruatetu jurisprudence does not apply. Consequently, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to review the applicant's sentence on the basis advanced. The application for revision is therefore incompetent and must be dismissed. The applicant is advised to seek administrative review through the prisons system, the Ministry of Interior, or the Advisory Committee on the Power of...
Court Disposition
application dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The application for sentence review is dismissed as incompetent.
- The file is to be closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 120 OF 2020
DENNIS OKELLO MATEBA.....APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...............................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This matter was placed before me for the purpose of giving direction, in view of the recent decision by the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another Vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus Curiae [2021] (Koome CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Ndung’u & Lenaola SSJJ), with respect to mandatory sentences, where it was clarified that the decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic [2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), had arisen from proceedings relating to murder, under section 204 of the Penal Code, Cap 63 laws of Kenya, and the position stated in the said decision was intended to apply only to mandatory sentences with respect to murder cases.
2. The motion herein, dated 6th august 2020, filed herein on even date, is principally founded on the decision, in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another vs. Republic [2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), for the applicant seeks review of his sentence, where he had been convicted of defilement, contrary to section 8(1)(3) of the Sexual Offences Act, No. 3 of 2006, in Kakamega CMCCRC No. 74 of 2012, and was sentenced to serve twenty years in prison. He filed appeals in Kakamega HCCRA No. 110 of 2014 and Kisumu CACRA No. 19 of 2015, both of which were dismissed.
3. The offence, the subject of the instant proceedings, is not murder, but defilement, as defined in section 8(1)(3) of the Sexual Offences Act, the decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017]eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), therefore, does not apply to it. As a consequence, the High Court has no jurisdiction to review the sentence that was imposed by the trial court, in view of the directions given in in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another Vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus Curiae [2021] (Koome CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Ndung’u & Lenaola SSJJ). The application is incompetent. The file herein is to be closed. Let the applicant seek review of this sentence administratively through the prisons system, the ministry of interior and the Advisory Committee on the Power of Mercy.
4. The Deputy Registrar shall cause copies of this ruling to be availed to the applicant and the office of Director of Public Prosecutions, Kakamega.
PREPARED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE