[2023] KEHC 21611 (KLR)
The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the applicant's sentence because the matter had already been determined by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, rendering the court functus officio. The court further clarified that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) & (7) of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 21611 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Ngui Nyamu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Garissa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E018 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Revision
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JN Onyiego
- Legal Topics
- Defilement Offence, Mandatory Sentencing, Sentence Review, Supervisory Jurisdiction
- 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
Peter Ngui Nyamu
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review a sentence already upheld by the Court of Appeal.
- 2 Whether the mandatory life sentence for defilement is unconstitutional in light of the Muruatetu and related decisions.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the applicant's sentence because the matter had already been determined by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, rendering the court functus officio. The court further clarified that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) & (7) of the Constitution does not extend to reviewing decisions of superior courts. Additionally, the court noted that while the Muruatetu decision declared the mandatory death penalty for murder unconstitutional, it did not extend this finding to mandatory sentences for sexual offences. Therefore, the application for sentence review was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review of sentence is dismissed.
- The court is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to review the sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Nyamu v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E018 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 21611 (KLR) (28 July 2023) (Revision)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 21611 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Garissa
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E018 of 2022
JN Onyiego, J
July 28, 2023
Between
Peter Ngui Nyamu
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Revision
1. The applicant was before Mwingi Law Courts charged with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8 (1) as read with sub-section (2) of the Sexual Offences Act Upon close of the trial he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on June 26, 2013.
2. His appeal to Garissa High Court vide Cr Appeal No 16 of 2015 was dismissed undeterred, he moved to the Court of Appeal vide Appeal No 60 of 2018 Nairobi. The appeal was equally dismissed on October 23, 2020.
3. He has now come to this court via undated Chamber summons filed on November 6, 2022. Seeking review of the sentence in line with the decision in the case of Philip Mueke Maingi & 5 others v Republic Petition No E017/ 2021 and Edwin Wachira & 9 others v RepublicPetition number; 97 of 2021 Mombasa where those courts allowed re –sentencing under Muruatetu case.
4. The application was opposed by the state on grounds that the court is functus officio.
5. I have considered the application herein and the response thereto. There is no dispute that the applicant was sentenced to serve life imprisonment which sentence was upheld by the High court and lower court.
6. The applicant is now inviting the court to review the sentence pursuant to Muruatetu one case which was also applied in the Phillip Mueke case where Judge Odunga expressed himself that the mandatory sentences are unconstitutional in line with Muruatetu 1 case. Learned Judge said mandatory sentences are not mandatory.
7. However Muruatetu 2 directions did not clarify that mandatory death penalty was duly unconstitutional in respect to murder cases. Although Odunga Judge as he then was said that mandatory sentences in sexual offences were not binding on the trial court, he did not find the same unlawful circumstances require that it be meted out.
8. It is trite that supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under Article 165 (6) & (3) is duly applicable against decisions made by Sub-ordinate courts and not superior courts. In this case I am being asked to review a decision of a superior court fully complied by the Court of Appeal. This court is functus officio hence has no power to review the sentence.
9. Order accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2023. J. N. ONYIEGOJUDGE