[2024] KEHC 4144 (KLR)
The High Court dismissed the application for sentence review on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter after the Court of Appeal had already determined the applicant's appeal. The court held that it was functus officio, having already discharged its duty in the matter, and that entertaining...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 4144 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Leila Munyiva Muli; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 111 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Jurisdiction of High Court, Functus Officio, Abuse of Court Process
- 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
Leila Munyiva Muli
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review the applicant's sentence after the Court of Appeal has determined the matter.
- 2 Whether the principle of functus officio applies to bar the High Court from entertaining the application.
- 3 Whether the applicant is abusing the court process by filing repetitive applications.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court dismissed the application for sentence review on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter after the Court of Appeal had already determined the applicant's appeal. The court held that it was functus officio, having already discharged its duty in the matter, and that entertaining the application would amount to disregarding the hierarchy of courts. The court further noted that the applicant had previously filed a similar application which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and that repeated filings without leave of court amounted to an abuse of the court process.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- The applicant is directed not to file a similar application unless with the leave of court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Muli v Republic (Criminal Revision 111 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 4144 (KLR) (30 April 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 4144 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision 111 of 2023
DR Kavedza, J
April 30, 2024
Between
Leila Munyiva Muli
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant filed a notice of motion application seeking sentence review. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. The averments made in support of the application are that she is serving a cumulative 16 years imprisonment and that the period spent in pre-trial custody was not taken into account. She urged the court to take into account this period.
2. In her pleadings, the applicant contended that she was charged, convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate’s court for the offence of trafficking in narcotic drugs in JKIA Magistrate’s Court Criminal case no. 149 of 2016. Her appeal to the High Court, being no. 129 of 2018 was dismissed on 10th July 2019. Similarly, her appeal to the Court of Appeal, being no. 153 of 2019 was also dismissed on 4th December 2020.
3. Additionally, I have noted from the record that the applicant filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 237 of 2021, wherein Bwonwong’a J dismissed a similar application for sentence review for lack of jurisdiction.
4. I have considered the application, the affidavit in support and the applicable law. From the record, I note that the matter was already handled by the Court of Appeal. If this court ventures into handling the application on its merits, it would be tantamount to a disregard for the hierarchy of courts. This court has no jurisdiction to supervise a superior court. As noted above, this court has already discharged its duty and became functus officio. I do not understand why the applicant, having exhausted her avenues of appeal, has come back to this court, unless she is intent on abusing the court process.
5. As a result, the application is dismissed. The applicant is directed not to file a similar application unless with the leave of court.
6. File closed.
Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2024_______________D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn presence of:N/A for the ApplicantMr. Mongare for the RespondentNelson C/APage 2 of 2