[2019] KEHC 5159 (KLR)
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to further re-sentence the petitioner, as such a request amounted to an appeal of its own previous order, which is not permitted. The court found that the sentence of two years on count 2, previously left in abeyance due to the death sentence on count 1, should now run...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 5159 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Odhiambo Oenga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition 11 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition partly allowed
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Remission of Sentence, Concurrent Sentences, Benefit of Least Severe Punishment
- 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
Joseph Odhiambo Oenga
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to further re-sentence the petitioner after a previous re-sentencing order.
- 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to remission of sentence under Section 46 of the Prisons Act.
- 3 Whether the sentence on count 2 should run concurrently with the sentence on count 1.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to further re-sentence the petitioner, as such a request amounted to an appeal of its own previous order, which is not permitted. The court found that the sentence of two years on count 2, previously left in abeyance due to the death sentence on count 1, should now run concurrently with the 30-year sentence imposed after re-sentencing. The court further determined that, following the commutation of the death sentence to a definite term and the reintroduction of remission in 2015, the petitioner is entitled to benefit from remission of sentence under Section 46 of the Prisons Act, as there was no evidence of exclusion under subsections (3) or (4)....
Court Disposition
petition partly allowed
Orders
- The prayer for further re-sentence is dismissed.
- The sentence of two years on count 2 is to run concurrently with the 30 years that the petitioner has been re-sentenced in count 1.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
54 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISUMU
(CORAM: CHERERE-J)
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 22, 23, 27 (1), (2), 28,
50 (2)(p),AND 165 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 296(2) OF THE PENAL CODE
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 46 OF THE PRISON’S ACT
BETWEEN
JOSEPH ODHIAMBO OENGA......................................................PETITIONER
AND
REPUBLIC.......................................................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
1. The Petitioner was initially convicted to death and was resentence in Kisumu High Court Criminal Petition No. 38 of 2018 to serve 30 years.
2. He has moved this court for further re-sentence and remission. He also seeks court’s direction concerning the sentence that was left abeyance.
3. The first prayer for re-sentence is in the form of Appeal of this court’s order. This court has no jurisdiction to review its own orders and the prayer for further resentence is declined.
4. At the trial, the Petitioner was convicted to death in the 1st count and to 5 years on counts 2, 4, 5 and 6. His conviction on counts 4, 5 and 6 were quashed and the sentence on count 2 was reduced to 2 years. The 2 years was left in abeyance following the death sentence in count 1.
5. Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code Chapter 75 Laws of Kenya provides that in the event that a person is convicted of more than one offence, the sentences imposed for each of the offences run consecutively except where the court directs that they run concurrently.
6. It therefore follows that the sentence of two years on count 2 is to run concurrently with the 30 years that the Petitioner has been re-sentenced in count 1.
7. The power to remit sentence as provided by Section 46 of the Actis as follows:
“(1) Convicted criminal prisoners sentenced to imprisonment, whether by one sentence or consecutive sentences, for a period exceeding one month, may by industry and good conduct earn a remission of one-third of their sentence or sentences.
Provided that in no case shall -
(i) any remission granted result in the release of a prisoner until he has served one calendar month;
(ii) any remission be granted to a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life or for an offence under section 296(1) of the Penal code or to be detained during the President's pleasure.
(2) For the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of subsection (1), each prisoner on admission shall be credited with the full amount for remission to which he would be entitled at the end of his sentence if he lost no remission of sentence.
(3) A prisoner may lose remission as a result of its forfeiture for an offence against prison discipline, and shall not earn any remission in respect of any period-
(a) spent in hospital through his own fault; or
(b) while undergoing confinement as a punishment in a separate cell.
(4) A prisoner may be deprived of remission -
(a) where the Commissioner considers that it is in the interests of the reformation and rehabilitation of the prisoner;
(b) where the Cabinet Secretary for the time being responsible for Internal security considers that it is in the interests of public security or public order.
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the Commissioner may grant a further remission on the grounds of exceptional merit, permanent ill-health or other special ground. [Act No. 25 of 2015].”
8. The Petitioner herein is entitled to the rights under Article 50(2) (p) of the Constitution states that:
“(2) Every accused person has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right-
(p) to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments for an offence, if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing.”
9. There are numerable decisions from this court that Section 46 of the Act is clear that remission of sentence is available to all convicted criminal prisoners which the Cabinet Secretary for the time being responsible for Internal security and the Prisons Commissioner General seem not to be aware of or have ignored.
10. The Petitioner was a convicted criminal prisoner when remission of sentence was reintroduced in 2015 and his sentence on count 1 has been commuted to a definite term.
11. There is no evidence that the Petitioner is excluded from remission by operation of Section 46 (3) and (4) of the Act. Consequently, this court finds that the Petitioner is entitled to benefit from remission.
Disposition
12. Consequently, the Petition succeeds and the court makes the following orders:
1) This prayer for further re-sentence is dismissed
2) The sentence of two years on count 2 is to run concurrently with the 30 years that the Petitioner has been re-sentenced in count 1.
3) Petitioner is entitled to benefit from remission
It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED IN KISUMU THIS31st DAY OFJuly2019
T.W. CHERERE
JUDGE
Delivered in open court in the presence of-
Court Assistant - Felix & Okodoi
Petitioner - Present in person
For the Respondent - Ms. Gathu