[2022] KEHC 16983 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 16983 (KLR)

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or revise a sentence that has already been appealed and dismissed by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction. The applicant's remedy lies in appealing to the Court of Appeal, not in seeking a second review before the High Court. Allowing such applications would violate the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 16983 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: George Juma Makhoha; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Naivasha
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 46 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
GWN Macharia
Legal Topics
Revision of Sentence, Concurrent Jurisdiction, Remand Custody Credit, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Revision of Sentence Concurrent Jurisdiction Remand Custody Credit Appeal Procedure

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Juma Makhoha

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the High Court can review or revise a sentence already considered and dismissed on appeal by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to have sentences run concurrently or to have remand custody considered under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code after dismissal of his appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or revise a sentence that has already been appealed and dismissed by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction. The applicant's remedy lies in appealing to the Court of Appeal, not in seeking a second review before the High Court. Allowing such applications would violate the principle that courts of equal jurisdiction cannot sit in review or appeal over each other's decisions, and would undermine the finality and procedural order of the judicial process. The application for revision is therefore dismissed as untenable.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.