[2012] KEHC 423 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant's grounds for revision—remorse, time served in remand, rehabilitation, and family circumstances—are not within the scope of revision jurisdiction as set out in Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court's power in revision is confined to correcting errors of law,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 423 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mary Mukulu Kituku; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 472 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Order on Revision
- Outcome
- revision denied
- Legal Topics
- Revision Jurisdiction, Sentence Review, Criminal Conviction, Remand Period, Rehabilitation, Appeal Vs Revision
- 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
Mary Mukulu Kituku
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Order on Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grounds advanced by the applicant fall within the scope of the court's revision jurisdiction under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether there was any illegality, incorrectness, or impropriety in the proceedings or sentence imposed by the subordinate court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant's grounds for revision—remorse, time served in remand, rehabilitation, and family circumstances—are not within the scope of revision jurisdiction as set out in Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court's power in revision is confined to correcting errors of law, fact, or procedure, and not to reconsidering sentences on compassionate or personal grounds. As there was no illegality, incorrectness, or impropriety in the proceedings or sentence, the application for revision was denied. The applicant's recourse lies in appeal, not revision.
Court Disposition
revision denied
Orders
- The application for revision is denied.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Machakos
Criminal Revision 472 of 2012 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-ZA X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:14. 0pt;"Times New Roman","serif";} </style> <![endif]
MARY MUKULU KITUKU……………………………APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………………………PROSECUTOR
ORDER ON REVISION
COURT:This is not a case for Revision. Rather it is a matter for the appellate court. The grounds advanced by the applicant in seeking revision are not among those contemplated under Section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code that underpins the revision jurisdiction of this court. The jurisdiction of this court to exercise that jurisdiction is limited to satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of the lower court. So that if the proceedings conducted, order made or sentence imposed by the subordinate court are deemed to be incorrect, illegal or suffer from one form of impropriety or another this court may intervene to correct the same in the exercise of its jurisdiction in revision.
From the facts of this case, the applicant was charged, tried and convicted by Hon. P.N Gesora, SPM.Upon conviction, she was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. I cannot discern anything incorrect, illegal or improper in the proceedings, or the sentence meted out. In her request for revision, the applicant has pointed that she is remorseful and truly sorry for her deeds and that the court was right in convicting her. That she has been sufficiently punished, bearing in mind that she served 2 years in remand prison pending her trial and eventual conviction. That she has since been rehabilitated and learnt to co-exist with other people peacefully without having to commit crimes. Lastly, she points out that she is a mother of a young girl whom she had not been in contact with for the last 2½ years who really needs her mother’s tender love and care.
All these matters go to appeal on sentence. They cannot be handled by way of revision. For these reasons, revision sought is denied.
DATED, SIGNEDand DELIVERED at MACHAKOSthis 31STday of OCTOBER, 2012.
ASIKE-MAKHANDIA
JUDGE