[2021] KEHC 2072 (KLR)
The court found that the petitioner's filings were too vague and incomplete to allow any determination on the review of sentence. The absence of a formal petition or application, lack of disclosure of the offence, and failure to provide judgments from the trial or appellate courts rendered the matter incapable of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 2072 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Patrick Asatsa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Petition E018 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Directions and Sufficiency of Filings
- Outcome
- Cause struck out for vagueness and lack of sufficient particulars.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Mandatory Sentencing, Sentence 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
Patrick Asatsa
Petitioner
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Directions and Sufficiency of Filings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner's application is sufficiently pleaded to enable the court to review the sentence imposed.
- 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review the sentence in light of the Supreme Court's clarification in the Muruatetu decisions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the petitioner's filings were too vague and incomplete to allow any determination on the review of sentence. The absence of a formal petition or application, lack of disclosure of the offence, and failure to provide judgments from the trial or appellate courts rendered the matter incapable of being considered. Furthermore, in light of the Supreme Court's clarification that the Muruatetu jurisprudence applies only to mandatory murder sentences, the court could not determine its jurisdiction without proper particulars. Consequently, the cause was struck out for want of clarity and substance.
Court Disposition
Cause struck out for vagueness and lack of sufficient particulars.
Orders
- The cause is struck out for being too vague and blurred for any sense to be made of it.
- The Deputy Registrar shall cause copies of this ruling to be availed to the petitioner and the office of Director of Public Prosecutions, Kakamega.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. E018 OF 2021
PATRICK ASATSA..............................PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This matter was placed before me for the purpose of giving directions, in view of the recent decision by the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others(Amicus Curiae[2021] (Koome CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Ndung’u & Lenaola SSJJ), with respect to mandatory sentences, where it was clarified that the decision, in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), had arisen from proceedings relating to murder, under section 204 of the Penal Code, Cap 63, Laws of Kenya, and the position stated in the said decision was intended to apply only to mandatory sentences with respect to murder cases.
2. The filings before me are incredibly vague. I am unable to make out what the proceedings, leading up to the conviction of the petitioner for twenty years, related to. He has not filed a petition nor an application. What I see are supplementary grounds and submissions. He has not placed on record judgments of the trial court and the appellate courts. He has not disclosed the offence for which he was convicted.
3. The state of the filings is that no determination can be made at all on review of the sentence. No directions can equally be given as to whether the court has jurisdiction under Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic[2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), in view of the directions given in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others(Amicus Curiae[2021] (Koome CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Ndung’u & Lenaola SSJJ). I shall accordingly strike out the cause on account of its being too vague and blurred for any sense to be made of it.
4. The Deputy Registrar shall cause copies of this ruling to be availed to the petitioner and the office of Director of Public Prosecutions, Kakamega.
PREPARED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER2021
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE