[2023] KEHC 24070 (KLR)
The High Court determined that it has no jurisdiction to review or alter a sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal. The applicant's recourse, if aggrieved by the enhancement of sentence by the Court of Appeal, lies in appealing to the Supreme Court. The application for review of the life sentence, including the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 24070 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Simon Jackson; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Voi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition E035 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Review of Sentence, Jurisdiction of High Court, Enhancement of Sentence, Defilement 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
Simon Jackson
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review or alter a sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal?
- 2 Is the applicant entitled to have the period spent in custody considered in the computation of his sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code?
- 3 Should the life sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal be commuted to the original 20-year sentence imposed by the Magistrate's Court?
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court determined that it has no jurisdiction to review or alter a sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal. The applicant's recourse, if aggrieved by the enhancement of sentence by the Court of Appeal, lies in appealing to the Supreme Court. The application for review of the life sentence, including the request to consider time spent in custody under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, is therefore incompetent before the High Court and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Jackson v Republic (Petition E035 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 24070 (KLR) (25 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 24070 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Voi
Petition E035 of 2023
GMA Dulu, J
October 25, 2023
Between
Simon Jackson
Petitioner
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. In this matter designated on a petition, but filed by way of application which is undated, the applicant seeks the following orders:-1. That the court be pleased to review the sentence and grant him lenient sentence informed by his mitigation and unique facts and circumstances of his case pursuant to article 50(2) (p) (q) of the Constitution of Kenya.2. That he begs the court to commute the life sentence that was given by the Kenya Court of Appeal to the earlier sentence of (20 years) that was imposed on him by the Magistrate’s court.3. That the period spent in custody be computed into he eventual sentence to be awarded pursuant to the provisions of section 333(2) of the CPC and also pursuant to Ahmed Abolgathi Mohamed & Another =Versus= Republic (2018) eKLR.
2. The application was filed with a notice of motion seeking that this court do hear the application as a priority.
3. The application was also filed with a supporting affidavit sworn by the applicant on 24th January 2023 citing a number of decided court cases.
4. Filed with the application is copy of the judgment in Taveta SRM Criminal Case No. 128 of 2011, and judgment in Mombasa High Court Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2011, as well as Mombasa Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2015 – S.J =Versus= Republic (2016) eKLR.
5. It is of note that the trial court and the High Court pronounced a sentence of twenty (20) years imprisonment. However, the Court of Appeal considered that the victim of defilement was 9 years old, a sister of the appellant and concluded that the sentence of 20 years imprisonment imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court was illegal and enhanced it to life imprisonment.
6. Instead of appealing to the Supreme Court, the appellant has come to this court seeking review of the Court of Appeal sentence inter alia, relying on the provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap.75).
7. In my view, this court has no jurisdiction or powers to review the sentence of the life prison sentence of the Court of Appeal, which court gave reasons for enhancing the sentence to life imprisonment.
8. In my view, the only avenue that could be available to the applicant herein was to approach the Supreme Court to reconsider the enhancement of sentence, and not to come to this court for review of sentence.
9. The application is thus dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 AT VOI.GEORGE DULUJUDGEIn the presence of:-Alfred – Court AssistantApplicantMr. Sirima for State