[2023] KEHC 21700 (KLR)
The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the applicant's sentence after the Court of Appeal had dismissed his appeal against both conviction and sentence. The doctrine of functus officio precludes the High Court from revisiting or altering a sentence that has already been considered and confirmed by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 21700 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sammy Mulai; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E025 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Application for Review of Sentence After Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JN Onyiego
- Legal Topics
- Murder Sentence, Remand Custody Credit, Functus Officio, Supervisory 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
Sammy Mulai
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Application for Review of Sentence After Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can review a sentence after the Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence.
- 2 Whether the period spent in remand custody should be considered in sentencing under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code after appellate proceedings have concluded.
- 3 Whether the High Court retains jurisdiction to alter a sentence confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the applicant's sentence after the Court of Appeal had dismissed his appeal against both conviction and sentence. The doctrine of functus officio precludes the High Court from revisiting or altering a sentence that has already been considered and confirmed by a superior court. Furthermore, the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution is limited to subordinate courts and does not extend to decisions of the Court of Appeal. As such, the application for review of sentence to account for remand custody under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was found to be without merit and was...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Mulai v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E025 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 21700 (KLR) (28 July 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 21700 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Garissa
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E025 of 2021
JN Onyiego, J
July 28, 2023
Between
Sammy Mulai
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged before Garissa High Court with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Particulars were that on February 9, 2012 at Nzale Sub-location of Migwani District within Kitui County, murdered Mwanzia Nyeki. He was subsequently sentenced to serve 30 years’ imprisonment on March 11, 2014.
2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he preferred an appeal to the Court of Appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 150/2019. The appeal was however dismissed.
3. The appellant is now vide an undated application, seeking review of sentence to take into account the period spent in remand custody pursuant to Section 333(2) of theCriminal Procedure Code.
4. The state through Mr. Kihara opposed the application for review of sentence arguing that the High Court is functus officio.
5. I have considered the application herein and the response thereof. This court is being asked to review the sentence of 30 years imposed by the High Court and later confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
6. A perusal of the Petition to the Court of Appeal reveals that the appeal was against conviction and sentence. Upon appealing to the Court of Appeal and a decision having been made, this court became functus officio. The High Court cannot revisit the Court of Appeal decision again to render a revised sentence.
7. Further, under Article 165 (6) & (7) of the Constitution, this court has supervisory jurisdiction only over sub-ordinate courts and not superior courts. To that extent, I do not find merit in the application hence the same is dismissed.
8. Order accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2023. ....................J. N. ONYIEGOJUDGE