[2025] KEHC 1895 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to re-open or re-hear the sentence in a matter where it has already rendered a final decision and the Court of Appeal has addressed the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu and subsequent clarifications do not invalidate mandatory sentences or minimum...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 1895 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stanley Ngugi Kimemia; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyahururu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application E066 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Re Hearing
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Rape, Mandatory Sentencing, Death Penalty, Functus Officio
- 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
Stanley Ngugi Kimemia
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Re Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to re-hear sentencing after conviction and appeal have been finalized.
- 2 Whether the Supreme Court's decision on the unconstitutionality of the mandatory death sentence applies to the applicant's case.
- 3 Whether the doctrine of functus officio bars the court from re-opening the matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to re-open or re-hear the sentence in a matter where it has already rendered a final decision and the Court of Appeal has addressed the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu and subsequent clarifications do not invalidate mandatory sentences or minimum sentences in the Penal Code or other statutes except as specifically stated. The doctrine of functus officio applies, barring the court from revisiting the matter. Therefore, the application for sentence re-hearing must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for sentence re-hearing is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Kimemia v Republic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E066 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 1895 (KLR) (3 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 1895 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nyahururu
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E066 of 2024
LN Mutende, J
February 3, 2025
Between
Stanley Ngugi Kimemia
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Stanley Ngugi Kimemia, the Applicant, was tried, found guilty and convicted for the offence of Robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code; and; Rape contrary to Section 140 of the Penal Code. Following the conviction, he was sentenced to suffer death, and, following the appeal to the Court of Appeal, the definite sentence for Rape was held in abeyance.
2. Through an undated application, filed herein on 25/1/2021, the Applicant seeks sentence re-hearing of Nyahururu Criminal Case Number 1596 of 2005. He mitigates that the Supreme Court declared death sentence unconstitutional.
3. In considering the application, I am guided by the case of Republic v Mwangi, Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA) & 3others(Amicus Curiae) Petition No E018 of 2023 (2024) KEC 34 KLR where the Supreme Court stated that;“The ratio decidendi in the decision was summarized as follows:69. Consequently, we find that section 204 of the Penal Code is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid to the extent that it provides for the mandatory death sentence for murder. For the avoidance of doubt, this decision does not outlaw the death penalty, which is still applicable as a discretionary maximum punishment”.We therefore reiterate that, this court’s decision in Muruatetu, did not invalidate mandatory sentences or minimum sentences in the Penal Code, the Sexual Offences Act or any other statute.”
4. That notwithstanding, this is a matter that was determined by the High Court which calls into play the principle of finality or functus officio. This court having finally exercised its authority in the case and determined the appeal following mitigation rendered before the trial court; it would have no jurisdiction to re-open the case with a view of determining the mitigation. The doctrine of “functus officio” was clearly stated in Telcom Kenya Ltd v John Ochanda (2014) eKLR. The court delivered itself thus;“Functus officio is an enduring principle of law that prevents the re-opening of a matter before a court that rendered a final decision.”
5. Notably, the Court of Appeal dealt with the question of conviction and sentence and rendered itself accordingly.
6. The upshot of the above is that I have no power to grant orders sought. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
7. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 3RDDAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025. ……………………L.N. MUTENDEJUDGE