[2025] KEHC 1705 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application for revision of a sentence imposed by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction. The revisionary powers under Article 165 of the Constitution and Sections 362 and 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code are limited to decisions from lower courts or tribunals, not to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 1705 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Kariuki Muibau; Respondent: The ODPP
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E1385 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Further Sentence Review
- Outcome
- application struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- AM Muteti
- Legal Topics
- Revision Jurisdiction, Sentence Review, High Court Powers
- 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
Peter Kariuki Muibau
Applicant
The ODPP
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Further Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review or revise a sentence imposed by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a further reduction of sentence under the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application for revision of a sentence imposed by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction. The revisionary powers under Article 165 of the Constitution and Sections 362 and 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code are limited to decisions from lower courts or tribunals, not to decisions made by another High Court judge. As such, the application for further sentence review is incompetent and must be struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The application by the applicant is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Muibau v ODPP (Criminal Revision E1385 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 1705 (KLR) (Crim) (26 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 1705 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Revision E1385 of 2024
AM Muteti, J
February 26, 2025
Between
Peter Kariuki Muibau
Applicant
and
The ODPP
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant in this matter was charged with the offence of murder under Section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code.
2. On 24th September 2009 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to death. He later moved this court for resentencing and the learned Honorable Lady Justice Mutende sentenced him to serve 30 years imprisonment.
3. He now seeks to have the court revisit the issue of sentence and consider reducing it further. His main argument is that he is left with one year to serve.
4. The state is opposed to reopening of the matter citing the fact that a judge of concurrent jurisdiction hearing re-sentenced the accused to 30 years imprisonment, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain any application for further review of the sentence. It is clear that the applicant has come to this court under the provisions of Article 165 of the Constitution and Sections 362 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code basically seeking a revision.
5. The Law is that the Revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court is only exercisable by this court as against decisions of tribunals exercising quasi- judicial powers or lower court’s that are subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
6. The High Court cannot review a decision of a High Court Judge purporting to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under the stated provisions.
7. The court therefore agrees with the submissions by counsel for the state that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application thus following in the wisdom of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Owners of Motor Vessel Lilians v Caltex Oil (K)Ltd (1989) eKLR this court cannot take any one more step in this matter. The court hereby downs its tools.
8. The application by the applicant is therefore struck out.
9. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025. A. M. MUTETIJUDGEIn the presence of:Kiptoo: Court AssistantMs Ogada for the stateApplicant present