[2023] KEHC 3592 (KLR)
The court held that since the applicant was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement, the sentence was properly passed and the applicant lost her right of appeal under section 137L of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court's revisionary jurisdiction under section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code is limited to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 3592 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Emmaculate Atieno Oudo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E195 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Plea Bargaining, Sentencing Review, 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
Emmaculate Atieno Oudo
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can interfere with a sentence passed pursuant to a plea agreement.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated any legal basis for review of the sentence under section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the applicant was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement, the sentence was properly passed and the applicant lost her right of appeal under section 137L of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court's revisionary jurisdiction under section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code is limited to cases where there is impropriety, procedural error, or an error apparent on the record, such as failure to consider time spent in custody or unlawfulness of the sentence. The applicant failed to demonstrate any such error or impropriety. Consequently, the application for a non-custodial sentence lacked merit and was dismissed, as the matter did not fall within the court's...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Oudo v Republic (Criminal Revision E195 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 3592 (KLR) (Crim) (19 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 3592 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Revision E195 of 2023
DR Kavedza, J
April 19, 2023
Between
Emmaculate Atieno Oudo
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. I have gone through the applicant’s undated application and the undated supporting affidavit. Notwithstanding that the application is undated, I shall take that as a procedural technicality due to the fact that the applicant is in prison. He may have not had proper legal guidance. Mostly, inmates use paralegals who are not trained lawyers to draft their pleadings. I shall consider the application as properly filed and proceed to interrogate its merit.
2. The applicant was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement negotiated between herself and the prosecution. The sentence was therefore properly passed by the trial court. The applicant lost her right of appeal under section 137L of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. She has now prayed for a non-custodial sentence. Under the law, (section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code), this court can only interfere with the sentence of a lower court if there are issues of impropriety of failure to adhere to the procedure or to check the correctness of the record.
4. However, where the High Court itself has passed the sentence the applicant can only seek review of the sentence if there is an error on apparent on the record. For instance, failure to consider the period spent in custody, or where the sentence passed is unlawful. The applicant has not demonstrated to this court any the reason that would call into question the sentence passed by the court. This is not a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of this court under the Community Service Order Act.The application lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.
RULING, READ AND DELIVERED ON 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023. ...........................DIANA KAVEDZAJUDGE