[2025] KEHC 5703 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 5703 (KLR)

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or alter a sentence that has already been affirmed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The applicant, having chosen to pursue appellate remedies up to the Court of Appeal, exhausted his right to review under Article 50(2)(q) of the Constitution. The period spent in custody was already considered by the appellate courts, and the High Court cannot revisit or override the decisions of the Court of Appeal. The application for review is therefore incompetent and misconceived, as the law does not permit a further review by the High Court after the appellate process has concluded.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 5703 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Samson Mubaa Murigi; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
8 May 2025
Case Number
Criminal Revision E131 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Outcome
application struck out
Judges
FN Muchemi
Legal Topics
Sentence Review, Jurisdiction of High Court, Custodial Sentence Calculation, Finality of Appeals
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Sentence Review Jurisdiction of High Court Custodial Sentence Calculation Finality of Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samson Mubaa Murigi

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review the applicant's sentence after dismissal of appeals by the High Court and Court of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the period spent in custody prior to sentencing should be considered in the applicant's sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the application for review is competent after the applicant exhausted his appellate remedies.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or alter a sentence that has already been affirmed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The applicant, having chosen to pursue appellate remedies up to the Court of Appeal, exhausted his right to review under Article 50(2)(q) of the Constitution. The period spent in custody was already considered by the appellate courts, and the High Court cannot revisit or override the decisions of the Court of Appeal. The application for review is therefore incompetent and misconceived, as the law does not permit a further review by the High Court after the appellate process has concluded.

Court Disposition

application struck out

Orders

  • The application for review is struck out.