[2023] KEHC 22074 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 22074 (KLR)

The court found that since the applicant, Samuel Kipyegon, had already served the entirety of his three-month sentence for stealing farm produce, there was no subsisting sentence or order for the court to revise. The revision jurisdiction under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code is only exercisable where...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 22074 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Samuel Kipyegon; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Revision Case E044 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Outcome
Application marked as overtaken by events; file closed.
Judges
HM Nyaga
Legal Topics
Stealing Farm Produce, Penal Code Offences, Prison Decongestion, Sentence Completion
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Stealing Farm Produce Penal Code Offences Prison Decongestion Sentence Completion

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Kipyegon

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether there is any sentence left to be revised for the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the application for revision is rendered moot by the applicant having served the full sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that since the applicant, Samuel Kipyegon, had already served the entirety of his three-month sentence for stealing farm produce, there was no subsisting sentence or order for the court to revise. The revision jurisdiction under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code is only exercisable where there is a live issue or sentence to be addressed. As the applicant's sentence was fully served by the time the matter came before the court, the application for revision was rendered moot and could not be entertained. The only just and proper order was to mark the application as overtaken by events and close the file.

Court Disposition

Application marked as overtaken by events; file closed.

Orders

  • The application is marked as overtaken by events.
  • File closed.