[2022] KEHC 12021 (KLR)
The court found that the plea of guilty was regularly and legally entered, the probation officer's report was duly considered, and the sentence imposed was modest and within the law. The applicant's grievance regarding compensation and expectation of withdrawal of the complaint does not render the proceedings...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 12021 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Harizon Jivuye; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Vihiga
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E010 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- PJO Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Revision Jurisdiction, Plea of Guilty, Sentencing, Supervisory Powers
- 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
Harizon Jivuye
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should revise the sentence imposed after a plea of guilty on grounds of alleged confusion and subsequent compensation to the complainant.
- 2 Whether the process of plea taking and sentencing in the lower court was regular, legal, and proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plea of guilty was regularly and legally entered, the probation officer's report was duly considered, and the sentence imposed was modest and within the law. The applicant's grievance regarding compensation and expectation of withdrawal of the complaint does not render the proceedings irregular or illegal. The proper avenue for challenging the plea of guilty is by appeal, not revision. Accordingly, there was no merit in the application for revision, and the request was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Jivuye v Republic (Criminal Revision E010 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 12021 (KLR) (28 June 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 12021 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Vihiga
Criminal Revision E010 of 2022
PJO Otieno, J
June 28, 2022
Between
Harizon Jivuye
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. I have looked at the application for review together with the record of the trial court which was presented before the court for perusal and noted that the order sought to be reviewed was actually a sentence imposed upon the accused having pleaded guilty to a charge of being found in possession of stolen property.
2. He seeks revision on the basis that being his first time in court he was confused and having been informed that his relatives were engaging the complainant towards a compromise, he did not expect to suffer after having been tricked by the complainant to pay compensation after he had taken his plea.
3. I am dealing with the request for revision in the absence of the parties and without seeking to be addressed by the applicant being guided by the provisions of section 365 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Having done so, the purpose and jurisdiction of the court in revision, as a supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, is purposed to ensure that decisions by the lower courts on any finding, sentence and orders passed, remain legal, correct and regular. It also extends to interrogating the regularity of the proceedings.
5. In the instant request for revision, an own plea of guilty was entered and a probation officer’s report was called for. My perusal of the court file reveals that the report was duly filed and the applicant was sentenced to serve three (3) years imprisonment. The disclosed grievance is that the complainant having received the compensation ought to have dropped the complaint or just withdrawn it.
6. That grievance is a challenge to the entry of plea of guilty. That I consider to be a matter for appeal in appropriate instances and not apt for revision.
7. I discern the record to show that the plea taking as a process was regularly undertaken, the entry of the plea was both regular and legal and the sentence was itself modest and within the law.
8. Being regular in process and legal, proper and correct on the finding and sentence, I find no merit in the request and do order that it be dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022. PATRICK J. O. OTIENOJUDGEIn the presence of:No appearance for the partiesCourt Assistant: Kulubi