[2022] KEHC 3207 (KLR)
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to re-examine or interfere with a sentence already determined by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction, especially where the sentencing judge expressly considered the period spent in pre-trial custody as required by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 3207 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Kiama Kariuki; Applicant: Geoffrey Kinyanjui Mirara; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 277 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Computation
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Computation, Pre Trial Custody Credit, Jurisdiction of High Court
- 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
Peter Kiama Kariuki
Applicant
Geoffrey Kinyanjui Mirara
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Computation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence should run from the date of arrest or the date of conviction within the meaning of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to re-examine a sentence already determined by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to re-examine or interfere with a sentence already determined by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction, especially where the sentencing judge expressly considered the period spent in pre-trial custody as required by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application was therefore without merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed for lack of merit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Kariuki & another v Director of Public Prosecutions (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 277 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 3207 (KLR) (Crim) (27 June 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 3207 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 277 of 2019
LN Mutende, J
June 27, 2022
Between
Peter Kiama Kariuki
1st Applicant
Geoffrey Kinyanjui Mirara
2nd Applicant
and
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Ruling
1. Peter Kiama Kariuki and Geoffrey Kinyanjui Mirara, have approached this court seeking orders that:(i)That this Hon. Court makes a finding that the law envisages that the sentences should run from the date of arrest as opposed to the date of conviction (within the meaning of Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code);(ii)That this Hon. Court declares that the sentence ought to have run from the date of arrest and not from 4/4/2019;
2. The sentence they are calling upon this court to interfere with was delivered by Kimaru J. who stated thus:“With regards to the sentence, following the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another vs. Republic (2017) eKLR this court has discretion to resentence the Appellant on the basis of severity of the offence. In the present appeal. The Appellants robbed the complainants after subduing them using a firearm. They subjected to a horrendous ordeal from the time they kidnapped them to the time they abandoned them in Nairobi. Violence was meted out on the complainants. This court can only imagine the psychological torture that the complainants experienced during the ordeal. The court has also taken into account that the Appellants have been in lawful custody for a period of ten (10) years. The court also took into account their mitigation. However, taking into account the entire circumstances of the case, this court formed the view that the death sentence is not called for. In the premises, this court sets aside the death sentence meted by the trial court. The same is substituted by an order of this court sentencing the Appellants to serve ten (10) years imprisonment with effect from the date of this judgment. This court has taken into account the period that the Appellants were in pre-trial custody and the period that they have been in prison since their conviction. It is so ordered.”
3. It is apparent that this court presided over by Kimaru J. dealt with the question of sentence. Therefore, I have no jurisdiction to re-examine the decision.
4. In the result, the application is bereft of merit. Accordingly, it fails and is hereby dismissed.
5. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI, THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022. L. N. MUTENDEJUDGEIN THE PRESENCE OF:Applicants – 1 and 2Mr. Kiragu for the StateCourt Assistant - Mutai