[2009] KEHC 1063 (KLR)
The court held that the application for revision was not properly before it, as the reasons advanced for revision—namely, to allow the subject to sit for national examinations—are not recognized grounds for revision under either the Children.s Act or the Criminal Procedure Act. Furthermore, the court emphasized that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1063 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: F D P; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 6 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application rejected with directions for subject to sit exams while serving sentence
- Legal Topics
- Juvenile Justice, Sentencing of Minors, Revision Jurisdiction
- 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
F D P
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can revise the sentence of a minor committed to a Borstal institution to allow him to sit for national examinations.
- 2 Whether the application for revision is properly before the court under the Children.s Act or the Criminal Procedure Act.
- 3 Whether letters seeking revision should be addressed directly to a judge.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application for revision was not properly before it, as the reasons advanced for revision—namely, to allow the subject to sit for national examinations—are not recognized grounds for revision under either the Children.s Act or the Criminal Procedure Act. Furthermore, the court emphasized that all correspondence seeking revision must be addressed to the Registrar or Deputy Registrar and not directly to a judge. While the application for release was rejected, the court directed that the subject be allowed to sit for his examinations either at the Borstal institution or, if necessary, be escorted to the designated examination centre.
Court Disposition
application rejected with directions for subject to sit exams while serving sentence
Orders
- The application for revision is rejected.
- The subject is to be allowed to sit for his national examinations at Kiptetan Centre No. 512307 or at the Borstal Institution at Shikusa while serving his term.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
1. Criminal Law
2. Revision
a. Subject, minor aged 16 years old committed to Bostal School for three years for offence of stealing
b. Subject Scheduled to suit for national exams in November,
c. To allow son do exams
3. Held
a. all letters be written to the Registrar/Deputy Registrar of a station and never direct to a judge.
b. The reasons to revise the case is not given
under the Children’s act nor the Criminal Procedure Act.
c. That the application is rejected.
d. That the revision be subject be escorted to do his exams at Kiptetan Centre No. 512307 or at the Borstal Institution at Shikusa whilst serving his term at the institution.
4. Case Law
5. Advocate – Nil
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KERICHO
CRIMINAL REVISION 6 OF 2009
F D P ……….………APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………..RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant is the mother to the 3rd offender and subject herein.
2. The subject had been charged with stealing and sentenced to three years term at the Shikusa Borstal institute.
3. A letter to this court by the subject’s mother prayed that the subject be released in order to complete his final examinations.
II: Held
4. All letters for revision be and must be addressed to the Registrar High Court and or the Deputy Registrar. No letters should be written directly to the Hon. Judge.
5. That the subject does not fall under the category for Revision on the Children’s Act.
6. It is hereby ordered that this revision be rejected. The prisons official should put the subject to sit his for exams at the institute or escort him to the Kiptetan Centre No. 512307.
7. Application is otherwise rejected.
DATEDthis 8th day for October, 2009 atKERICHO
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocates -Nil