[2025] KEHC 2260 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to re-hear or re-consider a sentence that has already been determined by a court of concurrent jurisdiction, as it is functus officio. The applicant's previous appeals and applications for leave to appeal out of time were dismissed, and the finality of the High Court's decision on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 2260 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Emojong; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyahururu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E001 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Re Hearing and Re Consideration of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Guidelines, Reconsideration of Sentence, Functus Officio, Wildlife Offences
- 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 Emojong
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Re Hearing and Re Consideration of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to re-hear and re-consider a sentence already determined by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the sentencing guidelines empower the court to interfere with a life imprisonment sentence after mitigation.
- 3 Whether the doctrine of functus officio applies to the present application.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to re-hear or re-consider a sentence that has already been determined by a court of concurrent jurisdiction, as it is functus officio. The applicant's previous appeals and applications for leave to appeal out of time were dismissed, and the finality of the High Court's decision on sentence precludes further review by the same level of court. Additionally, the Supreme Court has clarified that the Muruatetu decision does not invalidate mandatory or minimum sentences under relevant statutes. Therefore, the application for re-hearing and re-consideration of sentence is without merit and must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application by the applicant is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Emojong v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E001 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 2260 (KLR) (5 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 2260 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nyahururu
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E001 of 2025
LN Mutende, J
March 5, 2025
Between
Peter Emojong
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Peter Emojong, the applicant, and another were charged, convicted and sentenced for two (2) counts; Being in possession of Wildlife contrary to section 95 of the Wildlife Conservation Act,2013; and, Dealing in Wildlife Trophy contrary to Section 84(1) as read with Section 92 of the Wildlife and Management Act. The sentence imposed was Ksh. 1,000,000/-and in default five (5) years imprisonment; and, Ksh.20,000,000/- and, in default life imprisonment.
2. Aggrieved, he proffered an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed in its entirety. (See HCCRA No. 95 of 2017). Being dissatisfied further with the decision, he sought leave to appeal out of time, an application that was dismissed in 2024 by the Court of Appeal as the delay was inordinate.
3. Through an undated application, he seeks re-hearing and re-consideration of sentence pursuant to Section 216 and 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That the sentencing guidelines empower this court to interfere with life imprisonment after listening to mitigation.
4. In response, learned prosecution counsel, Mr. Obutu urged that the application lacked merit as this court cannot overturn the decision of the High Court.
5. I have considered rival averments. It is worth noting that this matter was considered and determined by the High Court (Wendoh J) a court of concurrent jurisdiction with this court which divests it of the authority to re-open the case. The High Court did issue a final order on sentence hence it’s functus officio.
6. Additionally, in Republic v Mwangi & Others Petition No. E018 of 2023 [2024] KESC 34(KLR) the Supreme Court stated that the decision of Muruatetu didn’t invalidate mandatory sentence, minimum sentence in the Penal Code, the Sexual Offences Act or in any other statutes.
7. From the foregoing the application by the Applicant is without merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
8. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. .....................................L.N. MUTENDEJUDGE