[2024] KEHC 13435 (KLR)
The court held that it had no jurisdiction to review or reduce a sentence that it had already upheld on appeal. The applicant's request for sentence review was therefore incompetent. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant was fortunate to have received a determinate sentence of 30 years, given that the law...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 13435 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Paul Odhiambo Odhiambo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 88 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Defilement Offence, Sexual Offences Act, 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
Paul Odhiambo Odhiambo
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review or reduce a sentence it has already upheld on appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a reduction of sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it had no jurisdiction to review or reduce a sentence that it had already upheld on appeal. The applicant's request for sentence review was therefore incompetent. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant was fortunate to have received a determinate sentence of 30 years, given that the law prescribes a mandatory life sentence for defilement of a child under 11 years. The issue of accounting for time spent in custody under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code should have been raised during the appeal, not in a subsequent application. As such, the application was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review or reduction of sentence is dismissed.
- This file is closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Odhiambo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 88 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 13435 (KLR) (22 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 13435 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Siaya
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 88 of 2023
RE Aburili, J
October 22, 2024
Between
Paul Odhiambo Odhiambo
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant Paul Odhiambo Odhiambo is a convict in Bondo PM SO Case No. 31/2018 where he was sentenced to serve 30 years imprisonment on 4/2/2019 for the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. He appealed vide HCCRA 5/2019. Which appeal was dismissed both against conviction and sentence on 17/2/2020.
2. The convict now applies vide his Notice of Motion dated 6/7/2023 for review of or reduction of the sentence imposed to enable him salvage his future and that the sentence to take into account Section 333 (32) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also filed submissions and certificates of the life skills acquired while in prison.
3. I have considered the application for sentence review.
4. I find no jurisdiction to review sentence upheld by this Court on appeal. Further, the convict was lucky to get a term sentence of 30 years noting that the mandatory sentence under Section 8 (2) of the Sexual Offences Act is life imprisonment. The victim of the offence was aged 8 years.
5. Additionally, the convict should have raised the issue of section 333 (2) of the CPC in the appeal for consideration.
6. I find this application to be devoid of merit. It is hereby dismissed. This file is closed.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024R. E. ABURILIJUDGE