[2022] KEHC 1301 (KLR)
The High Court found that it had already adjudicated the applicant's request for revision of sentence to finality in a previous application. Applying the doctrine of functus officio, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to revisit or alter its prior decision regarding whether the sentences should run...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 1301 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lucy Catherine Mutitu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 381 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- application struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Functus Officio, Criminal Revision, Personation, Obtaining by False Pretence
- 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
Lucy Catherine Mutitu
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review its previous decision on sentencing after having already determined a prior revision application.
- 2 Whether the doctrine of functus officio precludes the court from revisiting the issue of concurrent versus consecutive sentences.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that it had already adjudicated the applicant's request for revision of sentence to finality in a previous application. Applying the doctrine of functus officio, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to revisit or alter its prior decision regarding whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively. The principle of finality in judicial decisions precluded the court from entertaining the same issue again, and thus the application for review was struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The application for review of sentence is struck out.
- No further orders are made.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION - MILIMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 381 OF 2021
LUCY CATHERINE MUTITU…………………………..…APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.…………………………….………………....RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Lucy Catherine Mutitu, the applicant, was arraigned in court having contravened the law. Upon arraignment she pleaded guilty to three (3) counts of obtaining money by false pretence contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code and three (3) counts of personating a public officer contrary to Section 105(b)of the Penal Code. She was sentenced to serve two(2) years imprisonment on each count of obtaining money by false pretence and to pay a fine of fifty thousand (Ksh. 50,000/-) and in default to serve twelve (12) months’ imprisonment for the offence of personation. Sentences were to run consecutively.
2. Through an application filed in Criminal Revision No. E 072 of 2021, the applicant herein sought revision of the sentence meted out by the lower court, an application that was dismissed by this court.
3. In the instant application the applicant seeks review of the sentence so that the sentences can run concurrently. The issue raised cannot arise because this court adjudicated on it to finality therefore it cannot revisit it. This court would therefore not have Jurisdiction to determine the matter as it is functus officio.
4. The Supreme Court expounding on the doctrine of functus officio in Raila Odinga & Others Vs. IEBC & Others [2013] eKLR citing with approval an excerpt from an article by Daniel Malan Pretorius, in “The Origins of the functus officio Doctrine, with Specific Reference to its Application in Administrative Law,” (2005) 122 SALJ 832 stated thus: -
“The functus officio doctrine is one of the mechanisms by means of which the law gives expression to the principle of finality. According to this doctrine, a person who is vested with adjudicative or decision-making powers may, as a general rule, exercise those powers only once in relation to the same matter.… The [principle] is that once such a decision has been given, it is (subject to any right of appeal to a superior body or functionary) final and conclusive. Such a decision cannot be revoked or varied by the decision-maker.”
5. The upshot of the above is that this court being functus officio is not seized of jurisdiction to determine the matter. In the result, the application fails and is struck out.
6. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022.
L. N. MUTENDE
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
Applicant
Ms. Ntabo for the State/ODPP
Court Assistant – Mutai