https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10031

Mwangi v Republic (Petition E002 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 10031 (KLR) (6 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10031 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Murang'a Petition E002 of 2022 TW Ouya, J July 6, 2026 Between Peter Kamau Mwangi Petitioner and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.This Ruling is with respect to the undated Notice of motion Application filed in court by the Petitioner, Peter Kamau Mwangi of 29th December 2022 seeking for orders inter alia:i.Review of sentence downwards as per the referred provisions of the law.ii.This court to hear his prayer under Article 27 of the Constitution.iii.To consider all the cited provisions and authoritiesiv.Allow him to be present at the hearing of this petition. 2.The Petition is grounded and supported by the annexed Affidavit of Peter Kamau Mwangi, the Petitioner. In a nutshell, the Petitioner avers that he was charged with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1)(2) of the Sexual offences Act in case No. SO 5 of 32014 and sentenced to life imprisonment on 24th March 2014. He mitigates therein that he is a first offender, and is absolutely remorseful for his irresponsible action. He states that he has been fully rehabilitated and reformed having undertaken various courses in prison. He laments that having been in prison for a period of 8years, he has learnt his lesson and requires a second chance to be reintegrated in the society. 3.He urges this court to find that his petition has merit and to find that the period he Has served is sufficient punishment and to grant his prayers. 4.Neither party filed written submissions. The Petitioner relied on the documents filed. The Respondent did not filre response to the Petition but made oral submissions in court captured verbatim as hereunder:“I have studied the file and note that petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment on 24/3/2015. He was charged with section 8(1)2 of SOA. On appeal, the same was maintained. I wish to submit on the issues of law raised by the petitioner from his application he seeks to be allowed to serve the remaining sentence either on probation or non-custodial. At the time of the petition, he had already served 8 years. The basis of the application is that he has reformed in prions and is of good behavior and can be released back to society. We oppose the application since the law is now settled from the Supreme Court as regards sexual offences and the mandatory nature. We have R. vs. Manyeso decided in April 2025 and R. vs. Ayako decided in April 2025 by the Supreme Court. This overruled the Court of Appeal. In the present circumstance the petitioner does not benefit from the positions taken earlier. The sentence of life imprisonment should remain.” 5.This is a Review Application brought by way of a revision. It notable that the Petitioner had filed an appeal vide High Court Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2015 whereby Lady justice Lillian Mutende, vide Judgement dated 8th October 2019, confirmed his conviction but substituted his sentence with 23 years’ imprisonment. 6.The question for determination is whether this court has jurisdiction to review sentences already confirmed by the Court of Appeal. In the case of SNA v Republic, Misc. Criminal Application No 20 (2024) KEHC, Judge Terry Odera while sitting at Kisii High Court made reference to the Supreme Court finding in Raila Odinga v IEBC made a finding that:“Similarly, the matter of the sentence meted out was heard and concluded by this Court although differently constituted. Therefore, this Court is functus officio. This court is barred from rehearing the issue of sentencing. I therefore cannot entertain the prayer of granting a lenient sentence or otherwise.” 7.Likewise, I find that this matter having been determined by this court albeit before a different Judge, my role becomes functus officio and I cannot review the same. It is therefore beyond this court to review the sentence imposed upon the Petitioner by the High Court Murang’a. 8.The Appellant’s only available recourse is in the court of appeal. 9.Based on the above, I find that this Petition lacks in merit and I proceed to dismiss it. 10.Final orders: Appeal dismissed. The Petitioner to serve the remaining period of the sentence in custody. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ON CTS ON THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.HON. T. W. OUYA, OGWJUDGE