[2023] KEHC 1662 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 1662 (KLR)

The High Court held that it was functus officio in relation to the applicant's conviction and sentence, having already determined the matter on appeal in HCCRA No. 7 of 2020, which was dismissed. Furthermore, the applicant had filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal, and the relevant files had been forwarded to that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 1662 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: JM; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Naivasha
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E055 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Application After Conviction and Dismissal of First Appeal
Outcome
Application struck out for want of jurisdiction and as an abuse of court process.
Judges
GL Nzioka
Legal Topics
Sentence Review, Functus Officio, Abuse of Process, Remand Custody Credit
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Sentence Review Functus Officio Abuse of Process Remand Custody Credit

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JM

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Application After Conviction and Dismissal of First Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review the applicant's sentence after dismissal of his first appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application for sentence review is an abuse of the court process due to pending appeal in the Court of Appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the period spent in remand custody should be considered in sentencing under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that it was functus officio in relation to the applicant's conviction and sentence, having already determined the matter on appeal in HCCRA No. 7 of 2020, which was dismissed. Furthermore, the applicant had filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal, and the relevant files had been forwarded to that court. As a result, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the sentence review application, and the attempt to pursue the same subject matter in two courts simultaneously amounted to an abuse of the court process. The application was therefore struck out for want of jurisdiction and being an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application struck out for want of jurisdiction and as an abuse of court process.

Orders

  • The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction and being an abuse of the court process.