[2024] KEHC 14366 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any irregularity or illegality in the conviction or sentence imposed by the subordinate court. The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting such irregularities or illegalities, not to substituting its own view on sentence in the absence of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 14366 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Abdihakim Salad Mohamed; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E022 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Reduction
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JN Onyiego
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Revision, Wildlife Offences, Plea of Guilty, High Court Jurisdiction
- 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
Abdihakim Salad Mohamed
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Reduction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should reduce the applicant's sentence imposed by the subordinate court.
- 2 Whether the application for revision is the proper procedure for challenging the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any irregularity or illegality in the conviction or sentence imposed by the subordinate court. The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting such irregularities or illegalities, not to substituting its own view on sentence in the absence of such errors. Since the applicant's grounds were based on personal circumstances and remorse, rather than any legal or procedural defect, the application for revision was not the proper procedure. The court found the application to be an abuse of process and dismissed it.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Mohamed v Republic (Miscellaneous Application E022 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 14366 (KLR) (14 November 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 14366 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Garissa
Miscellaneous Application E022 of 2024
JN Onyiego, J
November 14, 2024
Between
Abdihakim Salad Mohamed
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant approached this Court vide an undated chamber summons seeking reduction of his sentence.
2. He was previously charged with the offence of dealing in the carcass of wildlife species contrary to section 98(1) as read with section 105 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management act, No. 47 of 2013.
3. On his own plea of guilt, he was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.
4. Mr. Kihara, the learned prosecutor argued the application orally while the applicant fully relied on his pleadings as filed.
5. Mr. Kihara opposed the application urging that the same lacked merit as the applicant pleaded guilty of the said charges. That nothing was demonstrated to show that the conviction and the sentence meted out were irregular. It was argued that the application ought to be dismissed as the same was bereft of any merit.
6. The applicant urged that he had stayed in prison for a period of 9 months hence already transformed. He stated that being a young father, his family was suffering for the reason that they lacked a provider. He prayed for consideration by this court on grounds that he is the sole breadwinner. It was his submission that he was remorseful for his actions and further promised that should his plea be considered, then he will use that opportunity to transform others.
7. I have carefully considered the application together with the submissions before me. The only issue for determination is whether this court ought to reduce the sentence meted out on the applicant.
8. It is pertinent to note that the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction which includes its revisional jurisdiction is limited to revision of orders or sentences passed by subordinate courts in criminal proceedings. A reading of sections 362 to 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes this legal position very clear.
9. This position is further buttressed by article 165 (6) of the Constitution which provides that:“(6) The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court.”
10. It is trite that the jurisdiction of the High Court on Revision is to correct manifest irregularities and illegalities occasioned before the subordinate courts. The applicant has not pointed out any irregularities or illegalities. He is urging the court to consider that he is the sole bread winner of his family hence this court ought to reduce his sentence.
11. In the instant case, it is my clear view that in matters where a party ought to appeal against a determination having been aggrieved, then the right channel as provided for by the law is an appeal and not revision.
12. By reason of the forgoing, I find that the application herein seeking orders of review of sentence is an abuse of the court process hence dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024J. N. ONYIEGOJUDGE