[2023] KEHC 3823 (KLR)
The High Court held that it was functus officio regarding the issue of sentence, as the applicant had already appealed against both conviction and sentence, and the appeal had been dismissed. The court found that the issues raised in the motion—whether the applicant was lawfully sentenced to two separate sentences...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 3823 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Morgan Nauna; Respondent: Director Of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E047 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Post Conviction Application Regarding Sentencing
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- WM Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Consecutive Vs Concurrent Sentences, Functus Officio, Post Conviction Review
- 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
Morgan Nauna
Applicant
Director Of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Post Conviction Application Regarding Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was lawfully sentenced to two separate sentences for one count.
- 2 Whether the sentences should have run concurrently rather than consecutively.
- 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to revisit the issue of sentence after the appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it was functus officio regarding the issue of sentence, as the applicant had already appealed against both conviction and sentence, and the appeal had been dismissed. The court found that the issues raised in the motion—whether the applicant was lawfully sentenced to two separate sentences for one count and whether the sentences should have run concurrently—were matters that should have been addressed on appeal. Since the appeal had been disposed of, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to revisit the sentence. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Motion is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Nauna v Director of Public Prosecutions (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E047 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 3823 (KLR) (28 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 3823 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E047 of 2022
WM Musyoka, J
April 28, 2023
Between
Morgan Nauna
Applicant
and
Director Of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was convicted, in Kakamega CMCCRC No. 2123 of 2016, by Malesi SRM, on 2nd March 2017, of office breaking and stealing, and was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for the breaking in and 7 years imprisonment for the stealing, with the 2 sentences running consecutively. He appealed, in Kakamega HCCRA No. 139 of 2017, against both conviction and sentence, and his appeal was dismissed, on 9th October 2019, by Sitati J, for lacking merit.
2. In the instant proceedings, by a Motion, undated, but filed herein on 15th June 2022, he complains that he was given 2 separate sentences in 1 count instead of being given only 1 sentence; and that the 2 sentences, if at all lawful, should have been made to run concurrently rather than consecutively.
3. The applicant lodged herein written submissions, filed herein on 15th November 2022, where he largely argues in mitigation of sentence, rather than in support of what he urges in his Motion.
4. The respondent, through Ms. Challah, made oral arguments on 6th December 2022. She submitted that the issue of sentence was argued on appeal and dismissed, and there was no occasion for the High Court to revisit the matter, and that the appellant was better off before the Court of Appeal.
5. The appeal file has not been placed before me, and I cannot, therefore, tell whether or not the applicant argued those points before the appellate court.
6. I agree with Ms. Challah, these are issues that should have been dealt with on appeal. The appeal was disposed of. The High Court is now functus officio, so far as the matter of sentence is concerned. My hands are tied. The Motion is accordingly dismissed.
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA ON THIS 28TH DAY OF APRILWM MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Erick Zalo, Court Assistant.AppearancesMorgan Sauna, the applicant, in person.Ms. Challah, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the respondent