[2022] KEHC 16504 (KLR)
The High Court held that it was functus officio after having already determined the applicant's appeal against conviction and sentence. The doctrine of functus officio precludes the court from reopening or revisiting its own final decisions. The applicant had previously sought re-sentencing based on the Muruatetu...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 16504 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Muya Njuguna; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Naivasha
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E051 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Application After Conviction and Appeal
- Outcome
- Application struck out for want of jurisdiction; High Court functus officio.
- Judges
- GL Nzioka
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Functus Officio, Sexual Offences, Jurisdiction of High Court
- 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 Muya Njuguna
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Sentence Review Application After Conviction and Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review or revise a sentence after it has already determined an appeal on the same matter.
- 2 Whether the principle of functus officio applies to bar the High Court from entertaining a further sentence review application after dismissal of an appeal.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to sentence review under Article 50(2)(p)(q) of the Constitution and section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it was functus officio after having already determined the applicant's appeal against conviction and sentence. The doctrine of functus officio precludes the court from reopening or revisiting its own final decisions. The applicant had previously sought re-sentencing based on the Muruatetu decision, but the court had determined it lacked jurisdiction to apply those principles to sexual offences. The current application for sentence review was therefore an abuse of court process, as the High Court no longer had jurisdiction to entertain it. The applicant's recourse, if dissatisfied, lies with the Court of Appeal, to which the relevant files have already been forwarded.
Court Disposition
Application struck out for want of jurisdiction; High Court functus officio.
Orders
- The application for sentence review is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- The applicant is advised to pursue his appeal at the Court of Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Njuguna v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E051 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 16504 (KLR) (8 December 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16504 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Naivasha
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E051 of 2022
GL Nzioka, J
December 8, 2022
Between
Samuel Muya Njuguna
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. By an application filed in court on August 15, 2022, the applicant is seeking for sentence review of the sentence meted out vide Chief Magistrate’s criminal case No 52 of 2015, at Naivasha. He prays that, the court be pleased to revise the sentence to a lenient one as provided for under article 50(2) (p) (q) of the Constitution of Kenya and take into account the provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The application was served but no response was filed. However, I note from the materials placed before the court that, the applicant was arraigned before the Chief Magistrates Court charged with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of Sexual Offences Act. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
3. He subsequently appealed against the decision vide High Court Criminal case No 62 of 2016, but the appeal was dismissed. He then moved to the Court of Appeal, although the appeal number has not been revealed. Even then, as that appeal was still pending, the applicant filed, Miscellaneous Criminal Application No 26 of 2020, seeking for re-sentencing after the decision in the case now famously referred to as “Muruatetu’s” case.
4. The re-sentencing application was heard and a decision rendered on the September 17, 2021, whereby the court held that, it had no jurisdiction to apply the principles of Muruatetu’s case in sexual offences. The applicant has once again filed the current application for sentence review.
5. In my considered opinion once the appeal was heard in this court and final decision rendered, this court become “functus officio".The law of functus officio thus dictates that, decision-makers; judges, administrative officials, or arbitrators, cannot as a general rule re-open their decisions to correct a mistake. There is no opportunity for them to; “do better next time” in the same case because there will be no next time. They must get it right the first time, for that will be their only time.
6. Further, in the Journal by the University of Queensland, on “The Finality of Judicial Decisions”, it is stated that, a court becomes functus officio in the following events;a)A judicial tribunal, becomes functus officio in respect of decisions made by it before it becomes defunct;b)The judicial tribunal's powers to revise its own decisions or to re-try any case after decisions made by it in the original trial have been rescinded.
7. Furthermore having returned to court for re-sentencing and been advised that, the court has no jurisdiction, the filing of this application amounts to an abuse of the court process and therefore I strike it out accordingly for want of jurisdiction.
8. The applicant should go to the Court of Appeal, if dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court. In fact, the High Court appeal file and the trial court file have already been forwarded to the Court of Appeal.
9. Those then are the orders herein.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED ON THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022. GRACE L. NZIOKAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Ms Ogutu - Court assistantApplicant in personMr. Ndiema for the Respondent