[2023] KEHC 24074 (KLR)
The High Court determined that after it had already considered the applicants' appeal and substituted the trial court's death sentence with a 30-year imprisonment term, its jurisdiction to further review the sentence was spent. The sentence in question was no longer that of the trial court but a substantive decision...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 24074 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ali Mganga; Applicant: Raphael Kirigha; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Voi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Revision, Jurisdiction of High Court, Finality of High Court Decisions
- 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
Ali Mganga
Applicant
Raphael Kirigha
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review its own substantive decision on sentence after an appeal has been determined and sentence imposed?
- 2 Were the applicants entitled to a further review of their sentence after the High Court had already substituted the trial court's sentence?
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court determined that after it had already considered the applicants' appeal and substituted the trial court's death sentence with a 30-year imprisonment term, its jurisdiction to further review the sentence was spent. The sentence in question was no longer that of the trial court but a substantive decision of the High Court, which cannot be reviewed by the same court. Therefore, 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
26 paragraphs
Mganga & another v Republic (Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 24074 (KLR) (26 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 24074 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Voi
Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2023
GMA Dulu, J
October 26, 2023
Between
Ali Mganga
1st Applicant
Raphael Kirigha
2nd Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The two applicants herein filed requests for review of sentence at Mombasa High Court. The file was later sent to this court when a resident Judge was posted to Voi, and the matter was designated as Voi High Court Miscellaneous Application No. E021 of 2023, the present file herein.
2. The two applicants filed their written submissions in Mombasa High Court Miscellaneous Application No. E162 of 2022, before the file was transmitted to Voi. On their part, the Director of Public Prosecutions filed written submissions in this present file after the matter was transmitted to this court.
3. In particular, the Director of Public Prosecutions opposes the request for revision on sentence on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the decision or judgment of the predecessor Judge at Voi – Justice Farah Amin.
4. I note that in a judgment delivered on February 25, 2020 by Justice Farah Amin, in Voi High Court Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2018 and 29 of 2018, the Judge ordered in the presence of both applicants herein that sentence would be determined after a probation report was filed and considered by the court.
5. In documents filed in their application, the applicants did not disclose what sentence was handed down to them after receipt of the probation report by the High Court.
6. However, in the first paragraph of their written submissions they state that the death sentence imposed by the trial court, was reduced by the High Court to 30 years imprisonment.
7. In my view, after the High Court substantively considered the initial death sentence and reduced the same to 30 years imprisonment, this court’s jurisdiction was spent by that considered decision on the sentence imposed and cannot now review the same, as the sentence is no longer the decision of the trial court but the substantive decision of this court, which cannot be reviewed by the same High Court on review.
8. I thus agree with the Director of Public Prosecution that this court has no jurisdiction to review its own decision in sentencing herein.
9. Consequently, I find no merits in the application of the two applicants. The application is hereby dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 AT VOI IN OPEN COURT.GEORGE DULUJUDGEIn the presence of:-AlfredBoth applicantsMr. Sirima for State