[2024] KEHC 12006 (KLR)
The High Court found that the applicant had already appealed against his sentence, and the issue of time spent in remand was not raised during that appeal. The court held that it is now functus officio, having already determined the appeal and resentencing. The court further held that the applicant cannot approach...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 12006 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Emase; Respondent: State
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kapenguria
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E044 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Defilement Offence, Sentencing Principles, Remand Period Credit, Abuse of Process
- 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
Peter Emase
Applicant
State
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a revision of sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for time spent in remand.
- 2 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of court process given prior appeals and resentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the applicant had already appealed against his sentence, and the issue of time spent in remand was not raised during that appeal. The court held that it is now functus officio, having already determined the appeal and resentencing. The court further held that the applicant cannot approach the High Court in a piecemeal fashion for issues that should have been raised in the previous proceedings. As such, the application for revision under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed as an abuse of court process.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed.
- File closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Emase v State (Criminal Revision E044 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 12006 (KLR) (30 September 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 12006 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kapenguria
Criminal Revision E044 of 2024
RPV Wendoh, J
September 30, 2024
Between
Peter Emase
Applicant
and
State
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant Peter Emase seeks a Revision of his sentence pursuant to S333 (2) of the CPC.
2. The applicant was convicted for the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the SOA.
3. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The applicant challenged the said sentence and later the matter was sent back to the trial court for resentence. He was sentenced to forty (40) years imprisonment. He then appealed to the High Court and on 5/7/2024 J. Mrima dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence of forty (40) years. S333(2) CPCprovides that when sentencing, the court should consider the period spent in remand. The applicant was before the High Court on appeal, and he never raised that issue then.
4. He cannot keep coming back to the High Court piecemeal. It is an abuse of court process. If he has any grievances, they must be dealt with at once. The High Court has dealt with his appeal and it is functus officio. If he has any other complaint, he should move the Court of Appeal.The Application for review lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.File closed.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAPENGURIA THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024. R. WENDOHJUDGEDelivered in the presence of:___________ the Appellant.Majale for the State.Court Assistants – Juma/Hellen