[2021] KEHC 5200 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application for re-sentencing where the Court of Appeal has already rendered a final decision on the matter. The principle of functus officio precludes the High Court from reopening or revisiting the case, and any application for re-sentencing must be directed to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 5200 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Kinyua Mwangi; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 319 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Re Sentencing
- Outcome
- application struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- GL Nzioka, LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Re Sentencing, Jurisdiction, Functus Officio, Muruatetu Guidelines
- 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
Peter Kinyua Mwangi
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Re Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for re-sentencing after the Court of Appeal has rendered a final decision.
- 2 Whether the principle of functus officio applies to bar the High Court from revisiting the matter.
- 3 Whether the applicant was candid in his affidavit regarding the status of his appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application for re-sentencing where the Court of Appeal has already rendered a final decision on the matter. The principle of functus officio precludes the High Court from reopening or revisiting the case, and any application for re-sentencing must be directed to the Court of Appeal. The applicant's failure to disclose the dismissal of his appeal in the supporting affidavit further undermines the application. Consequently, the application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS CRIMINAL DIVISION
MISC. CRIMINAL APPL. 319 OF 2019
PETER KINYUA MWANGI ..........................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS .........RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By an undated application filed in court on 17th June 2019, the applicant is seeking for; re-sentencing based on the decision in the “Supreme Court’s Application No. 5 of 2015”. Further, the period he spent in custody be considered, and the sentence meted be reduced accordingly. The application is supported by the applicant’s own affidavit dated; 4th June 2020.
2. In a nutshell, he avers that, he was charged with the offence of; murder contrary to; section 203, as read together with; section 204 of the Penal Code (cap63) laws of Kenya. He was tried vide; High Court Criminal Case No. 45 of 2009 and sentenced to death, on 26th February 2015.
3. Having been dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, he filed an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2016, to the Court of Appeal. Subsequently, the death sentence was commuted to; life imprisonment; pursuant to, Article 165(3) of the Constitution of Kenya.
4. The application was served but no formal response was filed thereto. It was disposed of vide filing of submissions, which I have fully considered herein. In that regard, I note that, the applicant’s submissions have dealt greatly with mitigating factors to consider while meting out sentence, and the Respondents’ submissions centered on; the guidelines given by the Supreme Court of Kenya, under paragraph 71 of the Muruatetu’s case, which should be considered during sentencing.
5. It also suffices to note that, the court ordered for a sentence review report, which was availed. It indicates that, the applicant is suitable for; favourable re-sentencing and that, the Probation Department will undertake to continue his rehabilitation of; alcohol, drug abuse, anger management and instilling interpersonal relationship.
6. Be that as it were, one issue eluded the parties herein, that, this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this application. The reason being that, upon hearing the Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2016, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court, and dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
7. As such, the High court became functus officio. This is a principle of law that prevents the re-opening of a matter before a court that rendered the final decision thereon. Thus, the only court that can hear the application on re-sentencing is, the court of Appeal.
8. It is also noteworthy that, the applicant was less than candid in the supporting affidavit when he failed to disclose that, the appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed in its entirety and merely stated;
“I am the appellant in KCA 130 of 2016”.
9. Further, even after filing this application, the applicant filed another High Court Criminal Application No. 7 of 2020, seeking for similar orders as herein which was struck out for being an abuse of the process of court.
10. In conclusion, I find that, this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the subject application due to want of jurisdiction, and consequently I hereby order and struck out the application accordingly.
It is so ordered.
DATED, AND SIGNED ON THIS, 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2021
GRACE L. NZIOKA
JUDGE
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2021, BY: -
LILLIAN MUTENDE
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Ms Kimaru for the Respondent
Applicant present in person
Mutai- Court assistant