[2020] KEHC 6143 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 6143 (KLR)

The High Court held that it was functus officio after having already determined the applicant's appeal and resentenced him from death to ten years imprisonment for the offence of grievous harm. The court found that the application for a non-custodial sentence or further reduction was misguided, as the offence was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 6143 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lowoya Samal; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Lodwar
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Resentencing/non Custodial Sentence
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
J Wakiaga
Legal Topics
Resentencing, Non Custodial Sentence, Grievous Harm, Robbery With Violence, Functus Officio
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Resentencing Non Custodial Sentence Grievous Harm Robbery With Violence Functus Officio

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lowoya Samal

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Resentencing/non Custodial Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for resentencing after it has already pronounced sentence and become functus officio.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a non-custodial sentence or reduction of sentence for the offence of grievous harm under section 234 of the Penal Code.
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court decision in Francis K Muruatetu applies to the applicant's circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that it was functus officio after having already determined the applicant's appeal and resentenced him from death to ten years imprisonment for the offence of grievous harm. The court found that the application for a non-custodial sentence or further reduction was misguided, as the offence was not eligible for such relief and the applicant had not appealed to the Court of Appeal. The court clarified that the Supreme Court's decision in Francis K Muruatetu did not apply to the applicant's case, as it only applies to cases where the mandatory maximum sentence was imposed without consideration of mitigation. The court further noted that the nature of the offence—robbery...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for resentencing or non-custodial sentence is dismissed.