[2022] KEHC 12532 (KLR)
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review or reduce the applicant's sentence after conviction and sentencing for murder, as it was functus officio. The only available recourse for the applicant was to appeal the sentence, which was not pursued or is now spent. The court further noted that the sentencing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 12532 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Mwachofi Mwandaa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Voi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Sentence Review Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JN Onyiego
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Murder Conviction, Remand Custody Period, Functus Officio, Resentencing Principles
- 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
Samuel Mwachofi Mwandaa
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Sentence Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review or reduce the applicant's sentence after conviction for murder.
- 2 Whether the period spent in remand custody should be considered in resentencing under the Muruatetu principles.
- 3 Whether the applicant's recourse should have been by way of appeal rather than review.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review or reduce the applicant's sentence after conviction and sentencing for murder, as it was functus officio. The only available recourse for the applicant was to appeal the sentence, which was not pursued or is now spent. The court further noted that the sentencing court had already exercised its discretion, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and sparing the applicant the death penalty. The Muruatetu principles did not provide a basis for review in this context, and the period spent in remand custody was not sufficient ground for the High Court to interfere with the sentence imposed. Accordingly, the application for...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Mwandaa v Republic (Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 12532 (KLR) (28 January 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 12532 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Voi
Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2021
JN Onyiego, J
January 28, 2022
Between
Samuel Mwachofi Mwandaa
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant herein was charged with the offence of murder to which he was convicted and sentenced to serve 20years imprisonment on 16th September 2019. Vide a chamber summons filed on 4th February 2021, the applicant sought orders of the court reviewing its sentence by reducing it after taking into account the period spent in remand custody. He contended that he has since reformed having undergone counselling and undertaken theology course while in prison.
2. After perusing the court file, the court ordered for approbation officer’s report containing remarks from the victim’s family. The report was subsequently filed with the relatives of the victim opposing the proposed reduction of sentence.
3. During the hearing, the applicant urged the court to consider the over three years period he spent in custody pending trial. In response, Mr. Chirchir for the respondent opposed the application stating that the applicant ought to have filed an appeal if he was aggrieved with the sentence. He further contended that this court has no supervisory role over its decisions. In his view, the court is functus officio.
4. I have considered the application herein and the response thereto. There is no dispute that the applicant was charged with a capital offence whose sentence stretches to a death penalty. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to a jail term. I am aware that muruatetu case introduced a new trajectory in resentencing of murder related convicts. However, the discretionary powers to resentence still remains with the sentencing court. In this case, the sentencing court took into account circumstances under which the offence was committed and spared the appellant a death penalty.
5. The appellant should appreciate that he was lucky enough to escape the rope. From the probation officer’s report, the victim’s family have not fully recovered from the effect of losing their beloved one. Further, if the applicant is complaining that the court applied the law improperly by failing to do what it was bound to do by law, then, that is aground for appeal and not under muruatetu sentencing principle.
6. The only recourse available to the appellant was to appeal which recourse is now spent. It is trite that sentencing is within the discretion of the sentencing court which an appellate court can only interfere with if the sentencing court applied wrong principles or considered irrelevant factors or failed to take into account relevant factors. See Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed&another v Republic(2018)e KLR.
7. In view of the above holding, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the sentence imposed. Accordingly, I am in agreement with Mr. chirchir that this court is functus officio for lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the application is dismissed.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT VOI THIS 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022. J.N.ONYIEGOJUDGE