[2019] KEHC 4465 (KLR)
The court held that it could not entertain the application for revision because the sentence had already been considered and upheld by a court of concurrent jurisdiction on appeal. The principle of res judicata applied, barring the court from revisiting the matter. The Applicant's omission to disclose the prior...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 4465 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rajabu Juma Jutto; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 740 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Narcotic Offences, Res Judicata, Concurrent Jurisdiction
- 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
Rajabu Juma Jutto
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court can revise a sentence that has already been upheld on appeal by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the application for revision is barred by the principle of res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it could not entertain the application for revision because the sentence had already been considered and upheld by a court of concurrent jurisdiction on appeal. The principle of res judicata applied, barring the court from revisiting the matter. The Applicant's omission to disclose the prior appeal and its outcome was material, and the application was therefore dismissed as improperly before the court, regardless of the mitigating factors presented.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION 740 OF 2018
RAJABU JUMA JUTTO............................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.............................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Applicant herein, a Tanzanian national, was charged with trafficking in narcotic drugs contrary to Section 4(a) of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act no.4 of 1994. It was alleged that he trafficked cocaine valued at Ksh. 9,125,000/-. At the conclusion, of the trial he was convicted and sentenced to serve twenty five (25) years imprisonment and pay a fine of Kenya Shillings twenty seven million three hundred and seventy five thousand (Ksh. 27,375,000). In default of the fine, he would serve a sentence of three (3) years imprisonment. Dissatisfied, he appealed against both the conviction and sentence. Honorable Justice F.A. Ochieng upheld the conviction and part of the sentence. He set aside the default imprisonment sentence against the fine which he held was illegal.
2. The Applicant against the decision of the high court but prematurely withdrew the same. He informed the court that he was satisfied with both the sentence and conviction. He made an application against this backdrop urging the court to revise his sentence.
3. The Applicant urged the court to consider that he had served thirteen (13) years of his twenty five (25) year sentence. It was his submission that he had since reformed. He further submitted that he was a foreigner. The Respondent argued that the conviction and sentence were safe and urged that the court only considers the period the Applicant had spent in remand before conviction.
4. The court ordered a probation officer's report. It was filed on the 3rd May, 2019. The report states that the family of the Applicant resides in Dar es Salaam. It was the sentiment of the officer that the Applicant had not been visited by the family since 2017 due to the distance. The report also highlighted the familial responsibilities that the Applicant had which his wife has had to shoulder. The report observed that the Applicant is aged 51 years old and having served 13 years of the jail term means that he was incarcerated at the age of 38 years. Lastly, prison authorities vouched for his character and discipline. He has attained mechanical and carpentry training in prison. He is further an Imam at the prison's mosque.
5. This is a case in which the Applicant has opted to give court half truths about the background to his case. He has concealed material facts that he filed an appeal to the High Court at Nairobi, being High Court Appeal No. 239 of 2007 arising from the same conviction. The result of the appeal was that it was dismissed save that the default imprisonment of three years was set aside by Hon. Justice F.A. Ochieng. The result of the appeal alone sufficiently demonstrates that the issue of sentence was dealt with by the judge. This court being of concurrent jurisdiction cannot purport to sit on an appeal of a decision of a concurrent court. The court is res judicata. Therefore, notwithstanding the detailed mitigating factors offered by the Applicant, it is an application that ought not to have been filed in the first instance to this court. I accordingly dismiss it.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi This 4th Day of June, 2019.
G.W.NGENYE-MACHARIA
JUDGE
In the presence of;
1. Applicant in person.
2. Miss Akunja for the Respondent.