[2023] KEHC 27073 (KLR)
The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition for resentencing because it had already determined the petitioner.s appeal, rendering it functus officio. The court further found that the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu does not apply to offences other than murder, and thus cannot be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 27073 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Elias Maloba Masika; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition E005 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition dismissed
- Judges
- DK Kemei
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Defilement Offence, Jurisdiction of High Court, Application of Muruatetu, Functus Officio, Appeal Process
- 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
Elias Maloba Masika
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review the petitioner.s sentence after dismissal of his appeal by a court of similar jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu applies to offences other than murder, specifically defilement.
- 3 Whether the petitioner is entitled to resentencing based on alleged reformation and acquisition of certificates while in prison.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition for resentencing because it had already determined the petitioner.s appeal, rendering it functus officio. The court further found that the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu does not apply to offences other than murder, and thus cannot be relied upon to review the petitioner.s sentence for defilement. The proper recourse for the petitioner, if aggrieved, is to move to the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the petition was found to lack merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed
Orders
- The petition is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Masika v Republic (Criminal Petition E005 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 27073 (KLR) (15 December 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 27073 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Bungoma
Criminal Petition E005 of 2023
DK Kemei, J
December 15, 2023
Between
Elias Maloba Masika
Petitioner
and
Republic
Respondent
Judgment
1. The Petitioner herein Elias Maloba Masika filed the present petition on 24. 8.23. seeking a re- sentencing in respect of Kimilili SPM Criminal Case No. 437 of 2013. His gravamen is that he was convicted and sentenced to serve twenty (20) years, imprisonment. He later lodged an appeal at Bungoma High Court being HCRA No. 46 of 2016 which was dismissed on 21. 12. 17. He has averred that pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Others -vs- Republic (2017) and the decisions of Odunga J (as he then were) in Machakos Petition No. E017 of 2021 and that he is entitled to a sentence review. He further averred that he has since reformed while in prison and has acquired several certificates.
2. Miss Mwaniki learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that his court has since pronounced itself on the matter and I thus functus officio. She sought for the dismissal of the Petition.
3. I have given the consideration to the Petition and the submissions presented. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by this court on December 21, 2021. There is no evidence that the petitioner has lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal . Be that as it may , it is my considered view that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter in view of the fact that a court of similar jurisdiction heard the Petitioner’s appeal and dismissed it. The directions given on July 6, 2021 by the Supreme Court in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Others -vs Republic (2017 (eKLR was that the said decisional law is not an authority to declare minimum sentences as unconstitutional. Its application was limited to murder cases falling within its scope. Therefore, the Petitioners case being one of defilement, the request for review of sentence on the basis of the Muruatetu case (supra) is without merit. The Petitioner’s appeal having been determined by this court ought to move to the Court of Appeal for redness as this court has become functus officio.
4. In view of the foregoing observations, it is my finding that the petition lacks merit. The same is dismissed.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT BUNGOMA THIS 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023D. KEMEIJUDGEIn the presence of:-Elias Maloba Masika PetitionerMwaniki For RespondentKizito Court Assistant