[2020] KEHC 6552 (KLR)
The High Court found that it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for resentencing after the Court of Appeal had already dismissed the applicant's appeal against conviction and sentence. The court held that the applicant, having been sentenced to life imprisonment and not the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 6552 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Mutiso Kimuyu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 118 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Resentencing
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- BC Koech
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Resentencing, Mandatory Sentences, Jurisdiction, Hierarchy of Courts
- 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 Mutiso Kimuyu
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Resentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to resentence the applicant after the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant, sentenced to life imprisonment, is entitled to resentencing following the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic.
- 3 Whether the application for resentencing is merited in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for resentencing after the Court of Appeal had already dismissed the applicant's appeal against conviction and sentence. The court held that the applicant, having been sentenced to life imprisonment and not the mandatory death sentence, was not entitled to resentencing under the Muruatetu decision. Furthermore, the application amounted to an improper review of the Court of Appeal's decision, which could only be entertained by a higher court. There was no evidence that the applicant had sought directions from the Court of Appeal regarding resentencing. Consequently, the application was...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The applicant’s application filed on 31.7.2019 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPL. NO. 118 OF 2019
PATRICK MUTISO KIMUYU........................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...................................................RESPONDENT
RULING ON RESENTENCING
1. Patrick Mutiso Kimuyu, the Applicant herein was charged with defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the sexual offences Act.
2. The Applicant pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to full hearing. He was convicted and sentenced life imprisonment.
3. The Applicant was aggrieved by that decision and filed an appeal, criminal appeal No. 167 of 2008 to the High Court against both the conviction and sentence. The appeal was duly heard. A judgment was delivered on 26. 3.2014 wherein the appeal was dismissed and that the conviction and sentence of the trial court was upheld.
4. Still aggrieved by that decision of the High Court the applicant filed a 2nd appeal, Criminal Appeal 33 of 2016 to the court of appeal against both the conviction and sentence. The appeal was duly heard. Vide a judgment delivered on 18. 11. 2016 the three judge bench of M.K. Koome, F. Sichale and J. Mohammed found the appeal as lacking merit and the same was dismissed.
5. The state in support of the application urged the court to remit the instant file to the trial court for resentencing and cited the cases of Jared Koita Injiri v R (2019) eKLR and Christopher Ochieng v R (2018) eKLR.
6. The issue for determination is whether the application has merit.
7. The Applicant did not appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal and opted to file a new Application before the High Court in which he seeks a resentence hearing pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 Others [2017] eKLRdeclaring the mandatory death sentence unconstitutional. Article 50(2)(p) of the constitution provides that an accused person has a right to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments for an offence, if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing. In S v. Ndlovu 2012 (1) ZLR 393 the Zambian High Court observed that sentencing must utilize an engendered approach and a constitutional and human rights perspective and from the import of Article 50(2) (p) of the constitution, the applicant is not entitled to resentencing.
8. The cited case has necessitated resentencing of all persons previously sentenced to the mandatory death sentence and the applicant was not sentenced to death but to life imprisonment.
9. Further this is an inappropriate application since the court is functus officio. It would also be disrespectful of this court to purport to descend into the arena to what amounts to a review of the decision of the Court of Appeal that found the applicant’s appeal as lacking in merit. Such an application can only be entertained by a higher Court – the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal. The applicant could as well have moved to the Court of Appeal for review of its order but not to come to this forum as that amounts to muddling the hierarchy of the courts. There is no evidence that the applicant has moved the Court of Appeal and got directions regarding the need for a resentencing either before this court or the Magistrate’s court.
10. In the result it is my finding that the applicant’s application filed on 31. 7.2019 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Machakosthis 29th day of April, 2020.
D. K. Kemei
Judge