[2019] KEHC 3305 (KLR)
The court held that the sentencing judge had already taken into account the period the applicants spent in custody, as evidenced by the sentencing remarks. The current judge, being of co-equal jurisdiction, lacked the authority to revise or alter the sentence imposed by another High Court judge. Any remedy sought by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 3305 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mugao Kinyiri; Applicant: Erastus Syengo Kinyiri; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 50 & 52 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- applications rejected
- Judges
- CM Kariuki
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Computation of Sentence, Jurisdiction of High Court
- 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
Mugao Kinyiri
Applicant
Erastus Syengo Kinyiri
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the period spent in custody prior to conviction should be factored into the applicants' sentence.
- 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to revise a sentence imposed by a co-equal judge.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the sentencing judge had already taken into account the period the applicants spent in custody, as evidenced by the sentencing remarks. The current judge, being of co-equal jurisdiction, lacked the authority to revise or alter the sentence imposed by another High Court judge. Any remedy sought by the applicants regarding the computation of their sentence should be pursued in the Court of Appeal, which has the mandate to interfere with High Court decisions.
Court Disposition
applications rejected
Orders
- The applications are rejected.
- The order applies to both Misc. Application No. 50 and 52 of 2019.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT GARISSA
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 50 OF 2019
AND NO. 52 OF 2019 (CONSOLIDATED)
MUGAO KINYIRI...................................................1ST APPLICANT
ERASTUS SYENGO KINYIRI.............................2ND APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. In the High Court Criminal Misc. No. 50 of 2019 – Mugao Kinyiri vs DPP and No. 52 of 2019 – Erastus Syengo Kinyiri vs DPP, the 2 applicants seek their sentence to factor in the period they were in custody during trial.
2. They were both charged with offence of murder. Particulars being in Count 1 that, on 8/12/2014 at Siokereke village, Siokereke Location, Tseikuru Sub-County murdered Japhet Mwinzi Kinyiri and Count II on the same particulars murdered Ruth Kanini Kimanzi.
3. They were convicted on lesser offence of manslaughter and sentenced to serve 5 years each for each count to run concurrently.
4. They have moved the court to order that the 5 years period to run from the date of arrest or plea 17/12/2014. They were convicted and sentenced on 1/11/2018.
5. Though the State does not oppose, I find that the applicants were convicted with 2 counts of manslaughter and the sentences are to run concurrently.
6. The court when sentencing them took cognizance of the period applicants were in custody when it said, “I appreciate the case was started in 2014, 4 years ago now. However the accused persons killed 2 people thus sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.”
7. The sentence was by my co-equal Judge and to adjust his order on sentence will amount to revision of a High Court order which I have no jurisdiction to undertake under Article 165 of the Constitution of Kenya.
8. This court thus declines to order that the sentences to run from the date of arrest as sought by the applicants. They ought to seek the remedy in the Court of Appeal which is mandated to interfere with High Court decisions.
9. Thus court makes the following orders:
i. The applications are rejected.
ii. The order to apply to both Misc. Application No. 50 and 52 of 2019.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT GARISSA THIS 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019.
......................
C. KARIUKI
JUDGE