[2009] KEHC 1022 (KLR)
The court held that the trial magistrate's intention was clear: the applicant was sentenced to five years on each count proved, with all sentences to run concurrently. Despite the existence of multiple files and counts, the cumulative sentence to be served is five years, not fifteen. The court found that both the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1022 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Francisca Kavuu Mutua; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 141 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Revision Ruling
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Interpretation, Concurrent Sentences, Manslaughter, 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
Francisca Kavuu Mutua
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Revision Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the applicant were to run concurrently or consecutively.
- 2 Whether the total period of imprisonment should be five years or fifteen years as interpreted by the prison authorities.
- 3 Whether the court should issue directions clarifying the sentence to be served.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the trial magistrate's intention was clear: the applicant was sentenced to five years on each count proved, with all sentences to run concurrently. Despite the existence of multiple files and counts, the cumulative sentence to be served is five years, not fifteen. The court found that both the applicant and the State Counsel's interpretation was correct, and directed that the applicant serve a total of five years from 5/3/2007, in accordance with the original sentencing order. The court emphasized that its own views on the propriety of the sentence were not sought, and its role was limited to clarifying the order as issued by the trial magistrate.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The applicant shall serve a total sentence of five years from 5/3/2007 as per the trial magistrate's order.
- This ruling shall be extracted and served on the Officer-in-Charge Machakos Women’s Prison for compliance.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
Criminal Miscellaneous Application 141 of 2009
FRANCISCA KAVUU MUTUA ………………………………… APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ………………………………………………………… RESPONDENT
REVISION
1. On 21/10/2008 I made a Ruling in which I declined to impose a fine in respect of the conviction of the accused person in Machakos CM’S Court Criminal Cases Nos. 2092, 2094, and 2095 of 2005. She had been charged and convicted in those cases of multiple counts of the offence of manslaughter.
2. In that Ruling I also declined to tamper with the prison sentence imposed but the convict through her lawyers has asked me to order that “the sentences that ran consecutively be so ordered and directions do issue that the period to be served in whole is five (5) years and not fifteen years as the prison authorities belief (sic)”.
3. From the Supporting Affidavit sworn on 1/10/2009, what is sought is an interpretation of the Ruling on sentence as meted out by the trial magistrate, Hon. H. Omondi. In her Ruling she stated as follows:-
“I also take into account the period spent in custody which is close to 2 years…ideally I would have sentenced her to serve 7 years imprisonment but considering that she has been in custody for almost 2 years, I sentence her to serve 5 years on each count proved on each separate file. The sentences to run concurrently.”
4. In my Ruling of 21/10/2008, I declined to interprete that Ruling as the convict at face value had no issue with it. She has now explained that her application for a Revision was made by paralegals who may have misled her and having taken proper legal advice, she now realizes that in fact her total sentence should be 5 years and not 15 years as the prison authorities have intimated.
5. In his letter dated 26/2/2008 seeking a revision order, M.M. O’Mirera Esq, Principal State Counsel stated as follows:-
“In our view, the sentence that could be obtaining would be five years on each count where conviction was entered and sentences meted to run concurrently.”
6. I had initially dismissed this view because the convict herself had taken no issue with it but having explained her predicament, I must revisit the learned magistrate’s words above.
7. She had convicted the convict on numerous proved counts but ultimately on “each count proved” she imposed a 5 year sentence and all sentences were to run concurrently on each separate file. This means that the convict and the learned State Counsel are quite right in their interpretation because the simple formulae used was each count = 5 years and all the sentences to run concurrently = 5 years in total.
8. Although there were three separate files, the whole trial was conducted within CM’S Court Criminal Case Number 2092/2005 and all the counts were proved in that file and the cumulative sentence was still 5 years.
9. In the end, I will direct that the convict shall serve 5 years sentence from 5/3/2007 until the end of that period. I say this only because that is what the trial magistrate ordered and my own views on the propriety of that sentence have not been sought. Many lives were lost in this matter and that is all I have to say.
10. Let this Ruling be extracted and served on the Officer-in-Charge Machakos Women’s Prison to comply with.
11. Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 13thday of October2009.
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE