[2022] KEHC 12376 (KLR)
The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review or alter its own sentence after having already determined the appeal and pronounced itself on the sentence. The court found that the applicant's remedy, if dissatisfied with the sentence, lay in appealing to the Court of Appeal. The court further noted that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 12376 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Fikirini Charo Masha; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Voi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E127 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JN Onyiego
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Jurisdiction of High Court, Remand Custody Credit
- 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
Fikirini Charo Masha
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review its own sentence after an appeal has been determined.
- 2 Whether the period spent in remand custody should be considered in sentencing after the appellate court has already pronounced itself.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review or alter its own sentence after having already determined the appeal and pronounced itself on the sentence. The court found that the applicant's remedy, if dissatisfied with the sentence, lay in appealing to the Court of Appeal. The court further noted that there was no indication in the lower or appellate court records that the period spent in remand custody was considered during sentencing, but correcting such an omission was not within its jurisdiction after the appeal had been concluded. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Masha v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E127 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 12376 (KLR) (28 January 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 12376 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Voi
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E127 of 2019
JN Onyiego, J
January 28, 2022
Between
Fikirini Charo Masha
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant herein was charged with the offence of committing unnatural offence contrary to section162(b) of the Penal Code. Upon hearing the case, the trial court convicted and sentenced him to 14 years imprisonment. Aggrieved by both conviction and sentence, he appealed to the High Court vide Voi high court criminal appeal no 25 of 2018. After hearing the said appeal, Justice Amin delivered her judgment on March 12, 2019 thus confirming the conviction. The honourable judge however reduced the sentence to 10 years imprisonment.
2. Subsequently, the applicant moved to this court again through an undated chamber summons seeking review of his sentence by reducing the same by four months being the period he was in remand custody pending trial. During the hearing, he urged the court to take into account the said period.
3. In response, Mr Chirchir for the state opposed the application urging that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. That the appeal against sentence was considered by a court of the same jurisdiction and if he was dissatisfied, he should have appealed against judge Amin’s judgement.
4. I have considered the application herein, oral submissions by both the applicant and the respondent. There is no dispute that the applicant was convicted and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment which was later reduced to 10 years by the high court. From the lower court and high court record, there was no mention by either court that accused’s period in remand custody was taken into account during sentencing. The question then is, which court is supposed to correct that omission?
5. It is trite that once a court has pronounced itself in a criminal trial by making final orders, there is no room for the same court to go round and temper with its orders except in murder cases pursuant to the famous muruatetu case. The court simply ceases to exercise jurisdiction hence it becomes functus officio. I am alive to the fact that sentencing is a matter of discretion by the sentencing court to which even an appellate court would rarely interfere with unless the sentencing court applied wrong principles in sentencing or the sentence imposed is excessive. See Josiah Mutua Mutunga & another v Republic (2019) eKLR.
6. In view of the circumstances surrounding this case, I am in agreement with Mr Chirchir that the only recourse available to the applicant was to appeal to the court of appeal challenging the excessive sentence if any. This court having pronounced itself on sentence during the appeal, it has no jurisdiction to review its orders. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
DATED DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT THIS 28DAY OF JANUARY 2022J N ONYIEGOJUDGE