[2023] KEHC 18021 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide the appellate court's decision to demonstrate whether section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was considered during resentencing. However, the court was satisfied that the reduction of the sentence from death to 15 years was more than lenient and that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 18021 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jakhim Koome Kithia; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E037 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- EM Muriithi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Time Spent in Custody, Robbery With Violence, Appeal Outcomes
- 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
Jakhim Koome Kithia
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have his 15-year sentence commence from the date of arrest under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the appellate court considered the period spent in custody when resentencing the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide the appellate court's decision to demonstrate whether section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was considered during resentencing. However, the court was satisfied that the reduction of the sentence from death to 15 years was more than lenient and that the appellate court likely took into account the applicant's mitigation, the circumstances and gravity of the offence, and the period spent in custody. Therefore, there was no merit in the application for further sentence review, and the court declined to grant the orders sought.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Kithia v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E037 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 18021 (KLR) (31 May 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 18021 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E037 of 2022
EM Muriithi, J
May 31, 2023
Between
Jakhim Koome Kithia
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant herein filed an application on 2/8/2022 under articles 25(c), 27(1), (2), 28, 29 and 50(2)(p) of the Constitution seeking that, “This honorable court be pleased to invoke the provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code into my sentence of 15 years from the date of arrest on September 15, 2014. ”
2. The request is premised on the grounds that the applicant was charged with robbery with violence and sentenced to death, but on appeal, the sentence was reduced to 15 years. He now prays that the said sentence does commence from the date of arrest being 15/9/2014, in line with the provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to him, the respondent will not suffer any prejudice if the orders sought are granted.
3. The respondent opposed the application vide grounds of opposition dated 26/4/2023 that, “The applicant’s appeal on conviction was dismissed, however the sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to 15 years as submitted by the applicant. As such, this court took into consideration the circumstances of the offence and the sentence passed was not only lenient, but also took into account the time spent in custody under section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code; In reduction of the sentence, this court (1st appellate court) exercised its discretion judiciously; This court has no jurisdiction as a further review of sentence will be tantamount to sitting on appeal of its orders; and in the upshot the respondent prays that the applicant’s application has no merit and it be dismissed accordingly.”
Analysis and Determination 4. The applicant was sentenced by the trial court to death but on appeal, the sentence was reduced to 15 years imprisonment. The applicant has not exhibited the appellate court’s decision to enable this court gauge whether the provisions of section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code were taken into consideration during his resentencing. Besides, the reduction of the applicant’s sentence from death to 15 years imprisonment was more than lenient and this court is undoubtedly convinced that the appellate court took into account the applicant’s mitigation, the circumstances of the offence and its gravity together with the period the applicant had been in custody in handing him the sentence of 15 years.
Orders 5. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the court finds that the application has no merit and the same is dismissed.
Order accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 31STDAY OF MAY, 2023. EDWARD M. MURIITHIJUDGEAPPEARANCES:Mr. Masila for D.P.P.Accused in person.