[2021] KEHC 6981 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicant sought resentencing based on the Muruatetu decision, the High Court had already remitted the application to the Chief Magistrate's court for resentencing. There was no order setting aside the life sentence to allow for resentencing, and the High Court's jurisdiction was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 6981 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jeremiah Sawe Marita; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 8 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Rehearing and Resentencing
- Outcome
- Directions to be given on the petition for resentencing after hearing the parties; no final determination on resentencing at this stage.
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Defilement Offence, Jurisdiction of High Court, Application of Supreme Court Precedent
- 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
Jeremiah Sawe Marita
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Rehearing and Resentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to rehearing and resentencing following the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application after having remitted the matter to the Chief Magistrate's court for resentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicant sought resentencing based on the Muruatetu decision, the High Court had already remitted the application to the Chief Magistrate's court for resentencing. There was no order setting aside the life sentence to allow for resentencing, and the High Court's jurisdiction was constrained by its prior order. To avoid procedural confusion, the court determined that it was appropriate to give further directions after hearing the parties, rather than proceed directly to rehearing or resentencing. The court thus ordered that appropriate directions be given on the petition for resentencing after hearing both parties.
Court Disposition
Directions to be given on the petition for resentencing after hearing the parties; no final determination on resentencing at this stage.
Orders
- Appropriate directions to be given on the petition for resentencing after hearing the parties.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK
MISC CRIMINAL PETITION APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2019
(CORAM:F.M.GIKONYO J.)
(Revision from Original Conviction/Sentence in Criminal Case No. 1898 Of 2014 Of the Chief Magistrate’s
Court at Narok and HCCRA 21 of 2015 at Narok)
JEREMIAH SAWE MARITA......PETITIONER
-versus-
REPUBLIC..................................RESPONDENT
RULING
Introduction
[1] Before me is an undated application filed on 17th July 2019 seeking for orders of a rehearing and resentencing pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another –vs- Republic [2017] eKLR and the decision in William Okungu Kittiny Vs Republic [2018] eKLR.
[2] The applicant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in respect of the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) (2) of Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. He filed appeal; Narok HCCRA 21 of 2015 which appeal was dismissed.
[3] When this application came before Bwonwong’a J. on 28/01/2020, the judge made an order that the applicant’s application be remitted to CM’s court for resentencing and it be mentioned on 18/02/2020 before the CM’s court.
Petitioner’s submission
[4] The Petitioner argued that he only pleads for re-sentencing. He insists that he has not been resentenced.
Prosecution’s submission
[5] Ms. Koina, prosecuting counsel for the Respondent opposed the application. She argued that the High Court has pronounced itself. Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction to determine the petition. She opined that the applicant should seek redress in an appeal to the Court of Appeal. She urged the court to dismiss the application.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
[6] The applicant sought re-sentencing on the basis of Muruatetu decisional law. However, Bwonwong’a J. on 28th January, 2020 ordered: -
Appellant’s application remitted to CM’s court for re-sentencing.
[7] Although the court did not give any reason or the basis for the order, such order is not unprecedented given the procedural spin brought about by Muruatetu decision. From the record, there is no order setting aside the life sentence so as to give way to re-sentencing. In the circumstances, it is only appropriate that I give appropriate directions on the petition for resentencing after hearing the parties so as to avert apparent muddle in the matter. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAROK THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION THIS 19TH DAY OF MAY 2021
--------------------------------
F. M. GIKONYO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
1. The applicant
2. Ms. Torosi for the Republic
3. Mr. Kasaso CA
--------------------------------
F. M. GIKONYO
JUDGE