[2024] KEHC 4238 (KLR)
The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for sentence review because the matter had already been determined by the Court of Appeal. Entertaining the application would amount to disregarding the hierarchy of courts and the doctrine of functus officio, as the High Court cannot...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 4238 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Nnamdi Egesimba; Applicant: Leila Munyiva Muli; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 105 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Jurisdiction of High Court, Pre Trial Custody Deduction
- 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
Nnamdi Egesimba
Applicant
Leila Munyiva Muli
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review the applicants' sentence after the Court of Appeal has determined the matter.
- 2 Whether the period spent in pre-trial custody should be considered in the applicants' sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for sentence review because the matter had already been determined by the Court of Appeal. Entertaining the application would amount to disregarding the hierarchy of courts and the doctrine of functus officio, as the High Court cannot supervise or review decisions of a superior court. The applicants had exhausted all avenues of appeal, and the court found no legal basis to reopen the matter. The application was therefore dismissed as an abuse of the court process.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for sentence review is dismissed.
- Applicants are directed not to file a similar application unless with the leave of court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Egesimba & another v Republic (Criminal Revision 105 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 4238 (KLR) (30 April 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 4238 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision 105 of 2023
DR Kavedza, J
April 30, 2024
Between
Nnamdi Egesimba
1st Applicant
Leila Munyiva Muli
2nd Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicants filed a chamber summons application seeking sentence review. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicants. The averments made in support of the application are that they are serving a cumulative 16 years imprisonment and that the period of 1 year, 8 months and 6 months, being the period spent in pre-trial custody, was not taken into account. They urged the court to take this period into account.
2. In their pleadings, the applicants contended that they were charged, convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate’s court for the offence of trafficking in narcotic drugs in JKIA Magistrate’s Court Criminal case no. 149 of 2016. Their appeal to the High Court, being no. 129 of 2018 was dismissed on 10th July 2019. Similarly, their appeal to the Court of Appeal, being no. 153 of 2019 was also dismissed on 4th December 2020.
3. Additionally, I have noted from the record that the applicants filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 237 of 2021 wherein Bwonwong’a J dismissed a similar application for sentence review for lack of jurisdiction.
4. I have considered the application, the affidavit in support and the applicable law. From the record, I note that the matter was already handled by the Court of Appeal. If this court ventures into handling the application on its merits, it would be tantamount to a disregard for the hierarchy of courts. This court has no jurisdiction to supervise a superior court. As noted above, this court has already discharged its duty and became functus officio. I do not understand why the applicants, having exhausted their avenues of appeal, have come back to this court, unless they are intent on abusing the court process.
5. As a result, the application is dismissed. The applicants are directed not to file a similar application unless with the leave of court.
6. File closed.
Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 30THDAY OF APRIL 2024_______________D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn presence of:N/A for the ApplicantMr. Mongare for the RespondentNelson C/A