[2022] KEHC 11264 (KLR)
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's application for re-sentencing because the matter had already been determined by the Court of Appeal, which reduced the sentence from death to 20 years imprisonment. The court found that the petitioner was abusing the court process by filing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 11264 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jane Nambuye Manyonge; Respondent: The Director Of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 013 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Re Sentencing
- Outcome
- petition and application struck out for want of jurisdiction and abuse of process
- Judges
- HI Ong'udi
- Legal Topics
- Re Sentencing, Abuse of Court Process, Functus Officio, Jurisdiction, Criminal Appeal
- 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
Jane Nambuye Manyonge
Applicant
The Director Of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Re Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court Constitutional and Human Rights Division has jurisdiction to entertain a re-sentencing application after the Court of Appeal has determined the matter.
- 2 Whether the petitioner is abusing the court process by filing multiple applications for re-sentencing in different divisions.
- 3 Whether the doctrine of functus officio applies to bar the High Court from revisiting the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's application for re-sentencing because the matter had already been determined by the Court of Appeal, which reduced the sentence from death to 20 years imprisonment. The court found that the petitioner was abusing the court process by filing multiple applications for re-sentencing in different divisions, and that the Constitutional and Human Rights Division was not the proper forum for such applications. The court further held that it was functus officio, having no authority to revisit the matter unless directed by a superior court. Consequently, the petition and application were struck out for want of jurisdiction...
Court Disposition
petition and application struck out for want of jurisdiction and abuse of process
Orders
- The undated petition and application are hereby struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Manyonge v The Director Of Public Prosecutions (Petition 013 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 11264 (KLR) (Crim) (7 June 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 11264 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Petition 013 of 2022
HI Ong'udi, J
June 7, 2022
Between
Jane Nambuye Manyonge
Petitioner
and
The Director Of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Ruling
1. The petitioner Jane Nambuye Manyonge filed the undated petition and notice of motion on January 27, 2022 seeking re-sentencing. Upon perusal of the pleadings I noted that the petitioner had been convicted of murder C/s 203 as read with section 204 of the penal Code and sentenced to suffer death. I therefore transferred the file to the Criminal division on February 4, 2022 for hearing. The file has just been returned to this division for hearing today.
2. I note from the record that the petitioner appealed against her conviction vide Court of Appeal – Criminal Appeal No 73 of 2019at Nairobi. She was heard and the conviction was upheld but the sentence was reduced from death to 20 years imprisonment.
3. The petitioner not being satisfied filed Misc Cr Application No E048/2021 in the Criminal division Milimani for re-sentencing. The same was heard and a ruling delivered by Grace Nzioka J on May 3, 2021. The said application was struck out for want of jurisdiction.
4. The petitioner then decided to file this petition / application in the Constitutional & Human Rights division coating it as a constitutional matter which is not the case and that is why I had sent it to the criminal division to deal.
5. It is therefore clear that the petitioner/applicant is simply abusing the court process. Criminal matters to do with re-sentencing are for the criminal division and not the Constitutional and Human Rights Division.
6. For this matter in particular, I find that it having been dealt with by the Court of Appeal and a decision made she cannot turn around to plead violation of unknown rights in seeking sympathy from this court. This court is functus officio. Unless directed by the Superior Court this court cannot start handling the matter again.
7. The undated petition and application are hereby struck out.Orders accordingly.
SIGNED AND DATED THIS 7THDAY OF JUNE, 2022 IN OPEN COURT AT MILIMANI, NAIROBI.H. I. ONG’UDIJUDGE OF THE HIGH COURTH.I.O.