[2024] KEHC 677 (KLR)
The High Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition for re-sentencing because the petitioner had an active appeal pending before the Court of Appeal, and the High Court had already dismissed his previous appeal, making it functus officio. The court further held that the Supreme Court's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 677 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Wycliffe Wafula Matanda; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition 79 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition dismissed
- Judges
- DK Kemei
- Legal Topics
- Resentencing, Robbery With Violence, Functus Officio, Jurisdiction, Appeals 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
Wycliffe Wafula Matanda
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a re-sentencing petition when an appeal is pending before the Court of Appeal.
- 2 Whether the decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu applies to cases of robbery with violence for purposes of re-sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition for re-sentencing because the petitioner had an active appeal pending before the Court of Appeal, and the High Court had already dismissed his previous appeal, making it functus officio. The court further held that the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu does not apply to cases of robbery with violence, as its scope is limited to murder cases. The petitioner’s reliance on Muruatetu was therefore misplaced. The court concluded that the petition was an abuse of process and should be dismissed, directing the petitioner to exhaust his appellate remedies at the Court of Appeal.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed
Orders
- The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
- The petitioner is directed to pursue his appeal before the Court of Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Matanda v Republic (Criminal Petition 79 of 2019) [2024] KEHC 677 (KLR) (31 January 2024) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 677 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Bungoma
Criminal Petition 79 of 2019
DK Kemei, J
January 31, 2024
Between
Wycliffe Wafula Matanda
Petitioner
and
Republic
Respondent
Judgment
1. The Petitioner herein Wycliffe Wafula Mutanda filed the present Petition seeking re – sentencing in respect of Webuye Principal Magistrate’s court in Criminal Case No. 1903 of 2009. His gravamen is that he was convicted and sentenced to death for the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code. He later lodged an appeal vide Bungoma High Court Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2011 which was dismissed. He later lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal which is yet to be determined. He sought to withdraw the said appeal on 24. 11. 2023 but the same is yet to be endorsed by the Court of Appeal. He has however, opted to prosecute his petition despite the pendency of his appeal at the Court of Appeal. The Petitioner submitted that he has since reformed while in custody and seeks to be given a second chance.
2. Miss Mwaniki, for the Respondent submitted that the Petition should be dismissed since the Petitioner’s appeal to this court vide HCRA No. 76 of 2011 was dismissed. Learned counsel contended that this court is already functus officio.
3. I have given due consideration to the application and the submissions presented. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was sentenced to death vide Webuye PMC CR No. 1903 of 2009. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner lodged an appeal to this court vide HCRA No. 76 of 2011 which was later dismissed. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Court of Appeal whose determination is yet to be known. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner had presented his wish to withdraw his appeal at the Court of Appeal but at the time of canvassing the application, no evidence was availed to the effect that the notice of withdrawal of appeal has been accepted by the court of appeal. That being the position, i find the present application is an abuse of the court process. The Petitioner should have exhausted all his appeal process before coming back to this court. 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 . This court is functus officio.
4. It is noted that the Petitioner has sought reliance on the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu and 2 Others v R (2017) eKLR wherein the Supreme Court held that the mandatory nature of death sentence is unconditional and that courts have discretion to receive mitigation of offenders before passing an appropriate sentence. It is common knowledge that all offenders who had been sentenced to death have had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment through the requisite presidential clemency. In fact, the petitioner herein is currently serving a life imprisonment after the death sentence was commuted through a presidential decree.
5. The Supreme Court vide guidelines dated 6/7/2021 directed that the decisional law in the Muruatetu case (Supra) is not an authority to declare minimum sentences as unconstitutional and that the decision was only in regard to murder cases falling within its scope. The Petitioner’s case being one of robbery with violence, the request for review of sentence on the basis of the Muruatetu case (Supra) is without merit. The Petitioner whose appeal has been determined by this court ought to move to the Court of Appeal for redress as this court has become functus officio. In any case, the Petitioner’s appeal is still pending before the Court of Appeal and hence he should proceed and exhaust his appeal there.
6. In the result, it is my finding that the Petition lacks merit. The same is dismissed.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT BUNGOMA THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2024. D. KEMEI,JUDGEIn the presence of:-Wycliff Wafula Matanda PetitionerMiss Kibet for RespondentKizito Court Assistant