[2023] KEHC 151 (KLR)
The High Court held that after it has rendered a final decision on appeal, it becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to entertain further applications for review or revision of the sentence in the same matter. The doctrine of functus officio precludes the court from reopening or revisiting its own decisions...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 151 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: David Letira Likai; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Naivasha
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E185 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- Application struck out and/or dismissed for want of jurisdiction and lack of merit.
- Judges
- GL Nzioka
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Functus Officio, Abuse of Process
- 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
David Letira Likai
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review the applicant's sentence after a final decision has been rendered on appeal.
- 2 Whether the application for sentence review amounts to an abuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that after it has rendered a final decision on appeal, it becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to entertain further applications for review or revision of the sentence in the same matter. The doctrine of functus officio precludes the court from reopening or revisiting its own decisions once they have attained finality. The applicant's repeated attempts to seek sentence review after dismissal of previous appeals and applications constitute an abuse of the court process. Accordingly, the application was struck out for want of jurisdiction and/or dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
Application struck out and/or dismissed for want of jurisdiction and lack of merit.
Orders
- The application for sentence review is struck out as an abuse of court process and/or dismissed for want of jurisdiction or lack of merit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Likai v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E185 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 151 (KLR) (4 January 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 151 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Naivasha
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E185 of 2021
GL Nzioka, J
January 4, 2023
Between
David Letira Likai
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. By an application filed in court on, November 23, 2021, the applicant is seeking for review of the sentence meted out against him vide criminal case 1099 of 2011, at the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Naivasha. He prays that, the court be pleased to revise the sentence pursuant to the provisions of Article 50 (2) (p) (q) of the Constitutionand section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The Respondent has not filed any response to the application. However, I note from the materials placed before the court that, the applicant was arraigned before the Chief Magistrate’s Court charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of thePenal Code. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to suffer death.
3. However, he subsequently appealed against the trial court’s decision vide High Court Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2024, but the appeal was dismissed in its entirety, on November 17, 2016. He then filed a Miscellaneous Application No. E038 of 2021, seeking for re-sentencing and it was dismissed. He has lodged an appeal in the Court of Appeal, and both the trial court and High Court files have been forwarded to that court.
4. The applicant has once again filed the current application for sentence review. In my considered opinion, once the appeal was heard in this court and a final decision rendered, this court becamefunctus officio. The law of functus officio thus dictates that, decision-makers; judges, administrative officials, or arbitrators, cannot as a general rule re-open their decisions to correct a mistake. There is no opportunity for them to; “do better next time” in the same case because there will be no next time. They must get it right the first time, for that will be their only time.
5. Further, in the Journal by the University of Queensland, on “The Finality of Judicial Decisions”, it is stated that, a court becomes functus officio in the following events;a)A judicial tribunal, becomes functus officio in respect of decisions made by it before it becomes defunct;b)The judicial tribunal's powers to revise its own decisions or to re-try any case after decisions made by it in the original trial have been rescinded.
6. I therefore find and hold that, the filing of this application amounts to an abuse of the court process and therefore strike out as such and/or for want of jurisdiction or dismiss it for lack of merit.
7. It is so ordered.
Dated, delivered and signed on this 4th day of January 2023GRACE L NZIOKAJUDGEIn the presence of:Applicant in person virtuallyMr. Ndiema for the RespondentMs Ogutu-Court Assistant