[2024] KEHC 190 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to revise or substitute a sentence that has already been confirmed by the Court of Appeal, as it is a superior court. However, the only relief available to the applicant is the application of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates that the period spent in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 190 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Barisa Wayu Mataguda; Respondent: Director Public Prosecution
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E156 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- Application for revision of sentence dismissed except to the extent of applying section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Judges
- A. Ong’injo
- Legal Topics
- Murder Sentencing, Revision Jurisdiction, Resentencing Principles, Section 333 2 Criminal Procedure Code
- 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
Barisa Wayu Mataguda
Applicant
Director Public Prosecution
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to revise or substitute the sentence imposed by the trial court after the Court of Appeal has dismissed the applicant's appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a non-custodial sentence or resentencing based on reconciliation and medical grounds.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to benefit from section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding computation of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to revise or substitute a sentence that has already been confirmed by the Court of Appeal, as it is a superior court. However, the only relief available to the applicant is the application of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates that the period spent in custody prior to conviction be considered in the computation of the sentence. Therefore, the court ordered that the applicant's 40-year jail term should commence from the date he was first arraigned in court, as the offence was not bailable at the time.
Court Disposition
Application for revision of sentence dismissed except to the extent of applying section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Orders
- The applicant's 40-year jail term shall start running from the date he was arraigned in court pursuant to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- All other prayers for revision or substitution of sentence are dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Mataguda v Director Public Prosecution (Criminal Revision E156 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 190 (KLR) (19 January 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 190 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Mombasa
Criminal Revision E156 of 2023
A. Ong’injo, J
January 19, 2024
Between
Barisa Wayu Mataguda
Applicant
and
Director Public Prosecution
Respondent
Ruling
1. By a letter dated August 28, 2023 the applicant seeks that this court urgently calls and examines the record of the proceedings of the trial court in its entirety and be pleased to make a finding that the sentence adduced was indeed very harsh and ought to be substituted with an order for non-custodial sentence.
2. The applicant in his letter above has indicated that his family and the deceased’s family had a meeting of reconciliation on June 5, 2020 and are now living in harmony and the chief of Kinakomba has written a letter dated July 2, 2021 to that effect. The Applicant has also indicated that he has been suffering from spine problem as per letter from Coast General Hospital. A notice of motion application filed on same date, a letter dated August 28, 2023 i.e. on September 13, 2023 also seeks review of sentence.
3. The applicant was convicted in Mombasa HCCR Case No 6 of 2008 for the offence of murder and sentenced to serve 40 years jail term after the trial Judge considered his mitigation and said that –“murder is an extremely serious offence. As a result of the accused’s action a human life has been lost and a family has been cast into mourning. The sentence must mirror the seriousness of the offence”.
4. The Applicant preferred an appeal to the Court of Appeal in CRA No 376 of 2012 and his appeal was dismissed in it’s entirety. Conviction & Sentence by the trial Judge was confirmed. This court cannot revise the orders of the trial court on any account neither can it revise the orders of the Court of Appeal being Superior Court.
5. In regard to application for re-sentencing the only thing this court can do is to order that the 40 years jail term starts running from the date the Applicant was arraigned in court pursuant to the mandatory provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code as the offence he was charged with was not bailable as at February 28, 2008.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT/ONLINE THROUGH MS TEAMS, THIS 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024HON. LADY JUSTICE A. ONG’INJOJUDGEIn the presence of: -Etropia - Court AssistantMr. Ngiri for the RespondentApplicant- Present in personHON. LADY JUSTICE A. ONG’INJOJUDGE