[2022] KEHC 14218 (KLR)
The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's request for revision of sentence because the same application, based on section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, had already been heard and dismissed by another judge of the High Court. The court held that it was functus officio, meaning...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 14218 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Isaac Juma; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E052 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JM Bwonwong'a
- Legal Topics
- Defilement Offence, Sentencing Revision, Pretrial Custody Credit, Sexual Offences Act, Criminal Procedure Code
- 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
Isaac Juma
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a second application for revision of sentence based on time spent in pre-trial custody under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a revision of his sentence after a similar application was previously dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's request for revision of sentence because the same application, based on section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, had already been heard and dismissed by another judge of the High Court. The court held that it was functus officio, meaning it had already exercised its judicial function in this matter and could not revisit the same issue. Entertaining the application would amount to an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and as an abuse of process.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
- No further orders are made.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Juma v Republic (Criminal Revision E052 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 14218 (KLR) (Crim) (24 October 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 14218 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Revision E052 of 2020
JM Bwonwong'a, J
October 24, 2022
Between
Isaac Juma
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being an application for revision of the sentence imposed by Hon. B Ojoo (SPM) on 30th October 2019 in Kibera Chief Magistrates Court Sexual Offence No. 21 of 2017 Republic vs Isaac Juma)
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged and convicted of the offence of defilement contrary to section 8 (1) as read with 8 (4) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. He was convicted and sentenced to serve ten (10) years imprisonment.
2. The applicant has now filed an application seeking revision of his sentence.
3. He prayed that the court takes into account the 2 years and 7 months spent in pre-trial remand custody in accordance with the provisions of section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75) Laws of Kenya.
4. I have considered the application herein and the submissions by the applicant. I note that the applicant substantively seeks the revision of his sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
5. I have also perused the entire record and notes that the applicant filed a similar application seeking a revision of his sentence on account of the provisions of section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code(Cap 75) Laws of Kenya in the Nairobi High Court Criminal Revision No. E314 of 2021, Isaac Juma versus Republic.
6. The said application was heard and dismissed by Hon. Lady Justice L. N. Mutende on 7th October 2021. The convict is back to court with the same application.
7. This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and determine this application; since this court (Mutende, J) heard and determined the same application on 07/10/2021. The learned Judge dismissed the applicant’s application. This court is therefore functus officio.
8. This application is an abuse of the court process and it is hereby dismissed.
RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE ON THIS 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022. J M BWONWONG’AJUDGEIn the presence of-Mr. Kinyua: Court AssistantThe applicant in personMs Ntabo for the Republic/respondent