[2020] KEHC 1511 (KLR)
The High Court held that it was functus officio in relation to the applicant's case, having already determined the issue of resentencing and the application of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in a previous ruling. The doctrine of functus officio precludes the court from revisiting or altering its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 1511 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Francis Muendo John; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 180 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Resentencing
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- BC Koech
- Legal Topics
- Defilement Sentence, Resentencing Application, Functus Officio Doctrine
- 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
Francis Muendo John
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Resentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for resentencing after it has already pronounced itself on the matter.
- 2 Whether the doctrine of functus officio bars the court from reconsidering the applicant's request for resentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it was functus officio in relation to the applicant's case, having already determined the issue of resentencing and the application of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in a previous ruling. The doctrine of functus officio precludes the court from revisiting or altering its decision, except for limited circumstances such as correcting clerical errors or review orders. Since the applicant's request for resentencing had already been addressed and granted to the extent permissible, any further challenge or application for resentencing must be directed to the Court of Appeal. The court therefore dismissed the application for lack of merit and jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The applicant's application for resentencing is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
Coram: D. K. Kemei - J
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPL. NO. 180 OF 2019
FRANCIS MUENDO JOHN..........................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING ON RESENTENSING
1. Francis Muendo John, the Applicant herein was charged with defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(4) of the Sexual Offences Act. He was convicted and sentenced to serve 15 years’ imprisonment.
2. The Applicant was aggrieved by the decision of the trial court and filed an appeal to this court which was subsequently dismissed.
3. The Applicant did file a second appeal to the Court of Appeal but later withdrew it. He filed and application in this court seeking a retrial and the same was dismissed vide ruling that was delivered on 28. 10. 2019 but however the court found that the 15 years that he was sentenced take into account the time he was in custody. Hence, the applicant’s request brought pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code has already been decided in his favour and granted vide the ruling dated 28. 10. 2019. The applicant has now filed the present application in which he seeks resentencing pursuant to the decisions in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v R (2017) eKLRandEvans Wanjala Wanyonyi v R (2019) eKLR.
From the import of the functus officio doctrine this court cannot consider the application for resentencing.
4. Once a court becomes functus officio, the only orders it can grant are review orders which are an exception to the functus officio doctrine. The Supreme Court in Raila Odinga & 2 Others v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 3 others [2013] eKLR stated that:
“A court is functus when it has performed all its duties in a particular case. The doctrine does not prevent the court from correcting clerical errors nor does it prevent a judicial change of mind even when a decision has been communicated to the parties. Proceedings are only fully concluded, and the court functus, when its judgment or order has been perfected. The purpose of the doctrine is to provide finality. Once proceedings are finally concluded, the court cannot review or alter its decision; any challenge to its ruling or adjudication must be taken to a higher court if that right is available.”
In this regard the Applicant’s application ought to be directed to the Court of Appeal for consideration since this court is already functus officio.
5. In the upshot, the Applicant’s application for re-sentencing lacks merit. The same is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 24th day of November, 2020.
D. K. Kemei
Judge