[2023] KEHC 23782 (KLR)
The court held that it lacks constitutional or legal authority to reconsider or review the sentence imposed by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction, especially where the applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal is still pending. The sentencing process was found to have been comprehensive, with the applicant given an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 23782 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: George Mukoya Ng'Ong'a; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E052 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Jurisdiction of High Court, Murder Conviction, Mitigation Factors
- 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
George Mukoya Ng'Ong'a
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review or resentence a conviction and sentence imposed by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the applicant's mitigation factors warrant a review or reduction of the sentence imposed for murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacks constitutional or legal authority to reconsider or review the sentence imposed by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction, especially where the applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal is still pending. The sentencing process was found to have been comprehensive, with the applicant given an opportunity to mitigate and a presentence report considered. The application for review was therefore dismissed for want of merit and lack of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review of sentence filed on 20/4/2023 is dismissed wholly.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Ng’ong’a v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E052 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 23782 (KLR) (18 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 23782 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Siaya
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E052 of 2023
DO Ogembo, J
October 18, 2023
Between
George Mukoya Ng’Ong’A
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant George Mukoya Ng’ong’a has moved this court this court by way of a Chamber summons application filed on 20-4-2023. The application seeks review of his sentence (re-sentence). In the affidavit in support of the application, the applicant has deponed that he was charged with the offence of Murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. That he was convicted of the same and sentenced to serve 30 years imprisonment.
2. The applicant filed submissions to his application on 14-7-2023. I have perused the same. The same only raises mitigation factors that the applicant is a first offender, he is remorseful and has undergone rehabilitation. And finally, that he has aged parents and children who would require his attention. That the judgment delivered by the court did not consider these factors.
3. The Prosecution made an oral response to the submissions of the applicant, that in fact the sentence of 30 years imprisonment was lenient. And that this court has no jurisdiction in this matter. The High Court having decided on the same. And lastly, that in any case the appeal of the applicant to the Court of Appeal is still pending. The court was urged to dismiss this application.
4. I have considered the application of the applicant and the response by the State. The applicant was charged with the offence of Murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. After a full trial, he was convicted and sentenced to serve 30 years imprisonment to run from the date of his arrest on 12/7/2021.
5. The record of proceedings of the court clearly show that the court accorded the accused the opportunity to mitigate. The court even obtained a Presentence report and submissions were made on the same. Submissions were even got from the family of the deceased.
6. This matter was therefore comprehensively dealt with by the High Court. This court does not have any constitutional or legal authority to reconsider any finding or order of a Judge of concurrent jurisdiction. I decline the invitation of the applicant that this court relooks at the sentence meted out by my sister Justice R.E. Aburili. Of note also is the fact that the appeal of the applicant to the Court of Appeal is still pending unheard.
7. In conclusion, I find no merit in the application of the applicant filed herein on 20/4/2023. I dismiss the same wholly. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA THIS 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023D.O. OGEMBOJUDGE10. 2023Court:Ruling read in court in the presence of the Applicant (Naivasha) and Ms. Mumu for the State.D.O. OGEMBOJUDGE10. 2023