[2019] KEHC 1063 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 1063 (KLR)

The High Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the power of mercy sought by the applicant under Article 133(1) of the Constitution, as this is the exclusive prerogative of the President. The court considered the application as one for sentence revision under section 364 of the Criminal Procedure...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 1063 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kelvin Kerima Monyanye; Respondent: State
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 67 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Revision
Outcome
partially allowed
Judges
REA Ougo
Legal Topics
Sentence Revision, Attempted Arson, Malicious Damage to Property, Jurisdiction of High Court
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentence Revision Attempted Arson Malicious Damage to Property Jurisdiction of High Court

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kelvin Kerima Monyanye

Applicant

State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Revision

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant power of mercy under Article 133(1) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed for malicious damage to property was excessive and should be revised.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence for attempted arson should be revised.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the power of mercy sought by the applicant under Article 133(1) of the Constitution, as this is the exclusive prerogative of the President. The court considered the application as one for sentence revision under section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Upon review, the court found that the sentence of 5 years for malicious damage to property was excessive given the circumstances and reduced it to 2 years. However, the sentence of 7 years for attempted arson was deemed appropriate and not excessive, especially in light of the applicant's conduct and the negative probation report. The sentences were ordered to continue...

Court Disposition

partially allowed

Orders

  • The sentence for malicious damage to property is reduced from 5 years to 2 years imprisonment.
  • The sentence for attempted arson remains at 7 years imprisonment.