[2017] KEHC 660 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence imposed on the applicant was within the statutory limits provided by Section 29 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act. There was no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the trial court's proceedings or sentence. The applicant's personal circumstances, including...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 660 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lucia Gichuku Njiru; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 148 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Female Genital Mutilation, Sentencing Principles, Criminal Revision, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Lucia Gichuku Njiru
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant for the offence of female genital mutilation was illegal, irregular, or improper warranting revision by the High Court.
- 2 Whether the applicant's personal circumstances justify revision of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence imposed on the applicant was within the statutory limits provided by Section 29 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act. There was no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the trial court's proceedings or sentence. The applicant's personal circumstances, including her status as a single mother and her claim of reformation, did not constitute grounds for revision under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the application for revision was found to be incompetent and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed.
- The applicant to be served with a copy of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 148 OF 2016
LUCIA GICHUKU NJIRU..........................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC................................................................RESPONDENT
18/01/2017
Before: Muchemi, J.
R U L I N G
1. This file is before me for revision. I have perused it and noted that the applicant was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for the offence of performing of female genital mutilation contrary to Section 19(1) as read with Section 29 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act. She says that she has served 1½ years and has now reformed. Her prayer before the court is that she wishes to have her sentence revised for she is a single mother with various responsibilities.
2. Section 362 empowers this court to do revision where the trial court has committed an illegality, irregularity, impropriety or any other mistake.
3. In the matter before me, the sentence imposed is within the law. Section 29 provides for imprisonment for a period of not less than three years or a fine not less than Shs.200,000/=.
4. There being no mistake or illegality occasioned by the trial court, I find that this is not a case for revision.
5. Consequently, this application is not competent and is therefore dismissed.
6. The applicant to be served with a copy of this ruling.
F.MUCHEMI – JUDGE
18/01/2017