[2024] KEHC 4975 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant, having pleaded guilty and been sentenced, had a right of appeal as to the extent or legality of the sentence under section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, by directly approaching the court for revision instead of filing an appeal, the applicant contravened section...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 4975 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Kimando Njuguna; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E006 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- Application for revision struck out as incompetent.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Revision Jurisdiction, Plea of Guilty, Sentencing Discretion, Appeal Vs Revision
- 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
Joseph Kimando Njuguna
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can entertain a revision application by a convict who pleaded guilty and was sentenced, instead of pursuing an appeal against sentence.
- 2 Whether the applicant's approach to the court for revision is barred by section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant, having pleaded guilty and been sentenced, had a right of appeal as to the extent or legality of the sentence under section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, by directly approaching the court for revision instead of filing an appeal, the applicant contravened section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prohibits revision proceedings at the instance of a party who could have appealed but did not. The court emphasized that revision is not a substitute for appeal and is primarily reserved for correcting errors of illegality or impropriety, not for re-examining sentences where an appeal is available. Consequently, the application for...
Court Disposition
Application for revision struck out as incompetent.
Orders
- The application for revision is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Njuguna v Republic (Criminal Revision E006 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 4975 (KLR) (9 May 2024) (Revision)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 4975 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kericho
Criminal Revision E006 of 2023
JK Sergon, J
May 9, 2024
Between
Joseph Kimando Njuguna
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Revision
1. The applicant was charged with the offence of stealing contrary to section 268 (1) as read with section 275 of the Penal Code. The applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty and was on 28th December, 2022 sentenced to three (3) years imprisonment by Hon. B.R. Kipyegon in Kericho Criminal Case No. E3056 of 2022 Republic v Joseph Kimando Njuguna.
2. The applicant has moved this court to exercise its supervisory power of revision to set aside the order on sentence and substitute it with a fine. The Applicant stated that he is a first time offender and he was remorseful for his actions.
3. He further stated that he has a young family and is a student who would wish to continue with his studies if the instant application is allowed.
4. I have considered section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that; “No Appeal shall be allowed in the case of an accused person who has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on that plea by a subordinate court except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.”
5. It is clear from the above quoted excerpt that the Applicant has a right of Appeal as against the sentence. The Applicant opted to file this Revision instead of challenging the Order on sentence by way of an Appeal. The Law does not pursuit a party who is entitled to challenge the order on conviction or sentence on Appeal to personally approach the Court for revision.
6. It would appear from the provision of Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the Court may act suo moto and may be prompted by another person or body other than the convict to exercise its power of revision.7. Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that; “When an appeal lies from a finding, sentence or order and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instant of the party who could have appealed.”
8. In the case Martin Mavuti Kituyi v Republic HCCR. Revision No. 27 of 2013 the court rendered itself as follows; “… the very nature of revision as a discretionary remedy explains the policy underpinnings of Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code; that revision should not be a substitute for an appeal whatsoever or insisted upon by a party who has not filed an Appeal where one was provided for. Revision primarily serves to put right instances where a finding, sentence, order or proceedings of a lower court are tainted by incorrectness, impropriety, illegality or irregularity…’’
9. Having personally approached this court to prompt this court to exercise its supervisory power of revision, the applicant breached the Provisions of Section 364 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. I find the revision to be incompetently before this court. The same cannot be entertained by this court. I hereby issue an order striking out the revision.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2024. ........................J.K. SERGONJUDGE