[2024] KEHC 2501 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 2501 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any circumstances warranting review or revision of the sentences imposed for murder and attempted murder. However, the court acknowledged an omission in the previous sentencing order regarding the commencement date of the sentence and directed that the sentence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 2501 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lydia Jelagat Kipngetich; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kabarnet
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E012 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review/revision of Sentence
Outcome
Application for review/revision of sentences declined; orders made regarding computation of remand period and concurrency of sentences.
Judges
RB Ngetich
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Sentencing Review, Concurrent Sentences
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Sentencing Review Concurrent Sentences

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lydia Jelagat Kipngetich

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review/revision of Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review or revision of the sentences imposed for murder and attempted murder.
  2. 2 Whether the period served in remand should be computed towards the sentences.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences should run concurrently.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any circumstances warranting review or revision of the sentences imposed for murder and attempted murder. However, the court acknowledged an omission in the previous sentencing order regarding the commencement date of the sentence and directed that the sentence should start from the date of arrest. The court further ordered that the period served in remand be computed towards both sentences and that the sentences should run concurrently, as previously ordered. The substantive prayer for review or revision of the sentences was declined.

Court Disposition

Application for review/revision of sentences declined; orders made regarding computation of remand period and concurrency of sentences.

Orders

  • Prayer for review/revision of both sentences is declined.
  • Period served in remand to be computed in respect to both sentences.