[2019] KEHC 4781 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 4781 (KLR)

The High Court held that it was functus officio after delivering its judgment and finally disposing of the matter. In the absence of statutory authority, the court could not reopen the case to revisit or alter the sentence. The application for consideration of time spent in custody under Section 333(2) of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 4781 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Musee Katee; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitui
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
3 July 2019
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous Application 78 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
LN Mutende
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Credit for Time Served, Appeals Against Sentence
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Credit for Time Served Appeals Against Sentence

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Musee Katee

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period spent in custody during trial considered in the computation of his sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to revisit or alter the sentence after the matter has been finally determined and the court is functus officio.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that it was functus officio after delivering its judgment and finally disposing of the matter. In the absence of statutory authority, the court could not reopen the case to revisit or alter the sentence. The application for consideration of time spent in custody under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.