[2025] KEHC 336 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to revise its own sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as its revisionary powers are confined to decisions of subordinate courts. Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution expressly bar the High Court from exercising supervisory jurisdiction over other...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 336 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Stephen Mwambua Mukolwe
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- application struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- SC Chirchir
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Commencement, Pre Conviction Custody, Jurisdiction of High Court, Functus Officio, Revision 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
Republic
Applicant
Stephen Mwambua Mukolwe
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to revise its own sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the period spent in custody prior to conviction should be considered in the applicant's sentence.
- 3 Whether the doctrine of functus officio bars the High Court from revisiting its own sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to revise its own sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as its revisionary powers are confined to decisions of subordinate courts. Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution expressly bar the High Court from exercising supervisory jurisdiction over other superior courts, including itself. Furthermore, the doctrine of functus officio precludes the court from revisiting its own final decisions. The sentencing judge had already considered Section 333(2) by ordering the sentence to run from the date of conviction. Therefore, the application for revision is incompetent and must be struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The application is hereby struck off.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Republic v Mukolwe (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 336 (KLR) (23 January 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 336 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2024
SC Chirchir, J
January 23, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Stephen Mwambua Mukolwe
Accused
Ruling
1. The Applicant was charged and convicted of the Offence of Murder by this court (Otieno J) and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
2. He has approached this court ,through the Notice of Motion dated 8/1/2024 premised on Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He prays that court takes into consideration , the period he had spent in custody prior to conviction.
3. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides as follows:- ““Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63) every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.Provided that where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.”
4. It is the Applicant’s case that there was no compliance with the above section.
5. The revision Jurisdiction of this Court as set out under Article 165(6) and (7) and sections 362 to 364 is in respect of the Lower Courts decisions only , not the superior courts, which include the high court. Indeed Article 165 (6) goes ahead to expressly bar the High Court from exercising any supervisory powers over the said superior Courts.
6. The sentence that the Applicant seeks to be revisited was passed by the high court and in the words of the above stated Articles of the constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this Application for .
7. Further under the doctrine of functus officio this court has exhausted its mandate. If the Applicant was dissatisfied with the sentence , his recourse lies with the court of Appeal and not this court.
8. In any event, I have noted that it is apparent that the Judge was alive to the provisions of Section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code when he expressly stated that the sentence should run from the date of conviction.
9. Nevertheless, this court has no Jurisdiction to entertain this Application, as aforesaid and the Application is hereby struck off.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025. S. CHIRCHIRJUDGE.