[2024] KEHC 1403 (KLR)
The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's request for variation of sentence because the applicant had already exhausted his appellate remedies, culminating in a final determination by the Court of Appeal. The doctrine of functus officio applied, rendering the court powerless to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 1403 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Teddy Karire Odero; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E277 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Variation of Sentence After Exhaustion of Appeals
- Outcome
- application struck out for want of jurisdiction; court functus officio
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Defilement Offence, Sentencing Variation, Functus Officio, Revisionary 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
Teddy Karire Odero
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Variation of Sentence After Exhaustion of Appeals
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to vary the applicant's sentence after the matter has been determined on appeal to finality.
- 2 Whether the doctrine of functus officio bars the court from entertaining the application for revision.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's request for variation of sentence because the applicant had already exhausted his appellate remedies, culminating in a final determination by the Court of Appeal. The doctrine of functus officio applied, rendering the court powerless to revisit or alter its previous decision or that of the appellate court. The court emphasized that revisionary jurisdiction is not available where the issues raised have already been conclusively determined on appeal. Consequently, the application was struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application struck out for want of jurisdiction; court functus officio
Orders
- The application is struck out.
- No further orders are issued.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Odero v Republic (Criminal Revision E277 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 1403 (KLR) (Crim) (12 February 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 1403 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Revision E277 of 2022
LN Mutende, J
February 12, 2024
Between
Teddy Karire Odero
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Teddy Karire Odero, the applicant, was convicted by the lower court for the offence of defilement and sentenced to serve twenty (20) years imprisonment. His first appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the trial court. Aggrieved, he preferred a second appeal to the Court of Appeal which was dismissed.
2. Through an undated application, filed herein on On 2nd November, 2022, he seeks variation of sentence so as to be discharged absolutely.
3. The application is opposed by the Respondent who argues that the court is functus officio.
4. Revisionary Jurisdiction cannot be invoked where a party has filed an appeal. The appellant’s appeal was heard and determined to finality therefore issues raised cannot arise. This court would therefore not have Jurisdiction to determine the matter as it is functus officio.
5. The Supreme Court expounding on the doctrine of functus officio in Raila Odinga & Others vs. IEBC & Others [2013] eKLR citing with approval an excerpt from an article by Daniel Malan Pretorius, in “The Origins of thefunctus officioDoctrine, with Specific Reference to its Application in Administrative Law,” (2005) 122 SALJ 832 stated thus:“The functus officio doctrine is one of the mechanisms by means of which the law gives expression to the principle of finality. According to this doctrine, a person who is vested with adjudicative or decision-making powers may, as a general rule, exercise those powers only once in relation to the same matter.… The [principle] is that once such a decision has been given, it is (subject to any right of appeal to a superior body or functionary) final and conclusive. Such a decision cannot be revoked or varied by the decision-maker.”
6. The upshot of the above is that this court being functus officio is not seized of jurisdiction to determine the matter. In the result, the application fails and is struck out.
7. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI, THIS 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024. L. N. MUTENDEJUDGEIn The Presence Of:ApplicantMs. Ntabo for ODPPCourt Assistant – Hadija/Habiba