https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6389
The application failed because the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a request that effectively sought review of sentencing orders already determined by other High Court judges. The proper recourse, if any, was an appeal to the Court of Appeal, not a fresh application in the same court.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 6389 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Wanyonyi Juma; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E031 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Judges
- ["AK Ndung'u"]
- Legal Topics
- Defilement Sentencing, Non Custodial Sentence Request, Section 333(2) CPC, Jurisdiction to Review Sentence, Probation Request
- 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 Wanyonyi Juma
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for probation and sentence review.
- 2 Whether the court could reopen or vary orders previously made by other High Court judges on the applicant’s sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The application failed because the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a request that effectively sought review of sentencing orders already determined by other High Court judges. The proper recourse, if any, was an appeal to the Court of Appeal, not a fresh application in the same court.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The Notice of Motion is dismissed.
- The ruling shall be served on the Applicant and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Juma v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E031 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 6389 (KLR) (12 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6389 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldoret Miscellaneous Criminal Application E031 of 2025 AK Ndung'u, J May 12, 2026 Between Peter Wanyonyi Juma Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.Before this court is a Notice of Motion by the Applicant seeking the following ordersa.That I am a convicted prisoner at Kitale Medium Prison of S.O case file Number 196 of 2017 (Sic). I was convicted and sentenced to serve 20 years imprisonment for the offence of defilement/c/section 8(1) and 8(3) of the S.O.A No 3 of 2006. Its my request to the honourable court to serve the remaining sentence on probation 2.The application was based on the following grounds as captured verbatim:1.That I was charged and convicted for the offence of defilement c/section 8(1) and 8(4) of the S.O.A No 3 of 2006 and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment at CM’s court in Eldoret.2.That the applicant later on appealed to the High Court at Eldoret vide appeal No 36 of 2020 of which the twenty (20) years sentence was replaced by thirteen (13) sentence starting from the date of conviction which was on 17.8.20183.That I don’t dispute the sentence imposed on me but only the fact that Section 333(2) of the CPC was not adhered to, for the sentence to run form the date of arrest which was on 7/10/2017 as prayed herein and to be released on probation for the remaining sentence under section 4(1) (a) of the probate of offenders at cap 64 of the Laws of Kenya4.That I have undergone various courses while in prison and obtained various awards of which I am ready to produce before the court of law5.I do regret what transpired hence I am now repentant, humble and remorseful6.Further grounds to be adduced during the hearing and determination of this kind of application 3.The application is supported by an affidavit in which the Applicant depones that:-a.He was sentenced to serve 20 years imprisonment for the offence of defilement. Further, that he prays for a non-custodial sentence. 4.I have considered the application and grounds relied upon of determination is whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain this application. 5.This matter was dealt with by Wendo J and followed up by orders of Githinji J. who was categorical in his ruling dated 17.6.2021 which he was very clear that the jurisdiction of this court is vested on the matter being heard by Wendo J who reduced the sentence from 20 years to 13 years. 6.Any issue that ought to have been in issue ought to have been raised then, I have no jurisdiction to review the orders of Wendoh J neither by Githinji J. 7.The Applicant’s recourse if at all, is before the court of appeal. The Application is dismissed. The ruling be served on the Applicant and the DPP. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY 2026.A.K NDUNG’UJUDGE