[2011] KEHC 549 (KLR)
The court found that the application for revision was misplaced because there was no error apparent on the record that would justify the exercise of the High Court's revisionary powers under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant's grounds, which were primarily based on personal and family...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 549 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Nepad Amunabi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 51 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Revision, High Court Discretion, Procedural Irregularity, Failure of Justice
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nepad Amunabi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's sentence can be revised on the grounds presented.
- 2 Whether there is an error apparent on the record justifying revision under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 3 Whether the application meets the threshold for revision as opposed to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for revision was misplaced because there was no error apparent on the record that would justify the exercise of the High Court's revisionary powers under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant's grounds, which were primarily based on personal and family hardship, did not meet the legal threshold for revision, which is intended to correct errors of law or procedure that have resulted in a failure of justice. The court emphasized that the appropriate avenue for challenging the sentence would be through an appeal, not a revision. Consequently, the application was disallowed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is disallowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KITALE.
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 51 OF 2011.
NEPAD AMUNABI :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT.
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT.
R U L I N G.
The applicant seeks to have his sentence reviewed” and gave the following reasons;
·That he did not plead guilty at trial.
·He is the sole bread winner of a family of nine.
·His parents died some years ago.He is married man and blessed with one child
·His family is staying in a rental house and a custodial sentence will make them suffer.
·He is sickly suffering from Asthma.He is remorseful and promise to be a law abiding citizen
The applicant has filed both an application to review his sentence on the basis that his family is suffering. The same is assigned no 51 of 2011.
Revision is ideally supposed to be brought under section 362 of the court. It is when there is. There is no error that is apparent on record.
The prison decongestion process is initiated by the probation department under the community service order regime.
The proceedings in this matter have already been typed and what to be done is for the records to be prepared and an appeal be set down for hearing at the next session.
There are certain distinctive features about revision.
(i) The High Court has complete discretion in revision (i.e. it is not bound to revise) because the revisionary power is discretionary.
(ii)In exercise of these powers no party or person is entitled, as of right, to appear before the High Court but the court may invite a party to be present at the hearing.
(iii)There is no time limit between which an order may be revised, unlike appeals which have to be brought within a specified period.
(iv)In revising orders, the High Court may act on its own motion (i.e. without being moved by either party to the matter)
(v)Both the appellate and revisionary powers of the High Court are aimed at correcting errors of subordinate courts. The basic difference between the two modes lies in the methods of bringing the matter complained of before the High Court.
Under section 382 of the C.P.C. revision only lies when 382. Subject to the Provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account of an error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during the trial or in any injury or other proceedings under this code, unless the error, omission or irregularity has accessioned a failure of justice:
Provided that in determining whether an error, omission or irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice the Court shall have regard to the question whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.”
This application is misplaced and the same is disallowed.
READ, DATED & SIGNED IN THE OPEN COURT THIS 24THDAY OF NOVEMBER 2011
S.M. MUKETI
JUDGE