[2020] KEHC 2867 (KLR)
The High Court found that the issue of the respondent's age was not contested during the trial or at sentencing, and the record of proceedings confirmed the respondent was 17 years old at the time of the offence. The applicant's request for further investigation into the respondent's age was deemed untenable, as the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 2867 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: PJK
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 44 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DB Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Age Assessment, Revision Jurisdiction, Sentencing Procedure
- 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
PJK
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in determining the respondent's age as 17 at the time of the offence.
- 2 Whether the High Court should order further investigations into the respondent's age under its revisionary jurisdiction.
- 3 Whether the record of proceedings demonstrates any incorrectness, illegality, or impropriety justifying revision.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the issue of the respondent's age was not contested during the trial or at sentencing, and the record of proceedings confirmed the respondent was 17 years old at the time of the offence. The applicant's request for further investigation into the respondent's age was deemed untenable, as the revisionary jurisdiction of the court is confined to the record before the subordinate court. No incorrectness, illegality, or impropriety was found in the trial court's determination of age or the proceedings. Consequently, the application for revision was denied for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The applicant's application for revision of the trial court's decision on the age of the respondent is denied for want of merit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MALINDI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 44 OF 2019
REPUBLIC ...............................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
PJK.........................................................................................................RESPONDENT
Coram: Hon. Justice R. Nyakundi
Mr. Alenga for the applicant
Respondent in person
RULING
The instant matter was brought pursuant to Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 25(c), 27(1),47(1) and 159(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. The victim through Odhiambo S. E. & Co. Advocates have expressed dissatisfaction towards the decision of the trial court and she now seeks the court’s indulgence to review the Judgment and sentence. The grounds for review as laid down by the applicant are as follows:
(a) The applicant challenges the age of the Respondent noting that both the age assessment reports and the probation officers report indicate the same.
(b) The Applicant said that they have it on good authority that the Respondent was born in 1984 and his knowledge is from the fact that the Respondent is the victim’s neighbor.
(c) That the Respondent’s national identity card indicates his year of birth as 1998 which goes to show that he was over the age of 18 when he committed the offence.
The applicant has therefore urged the court to call for the trial court record and order for further investigations with regard to the age of the accused who is serving 3 years’ probation. Further that the applicant is willing to bring more evidence before court to prove that the Respondent is not a minor.
Determination
In terms of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself to the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings. I shall proceed to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the record of proceedings herein as under.
I have perused the record of proceedings. The question raised by the applicants is as regards the age of the respondent. In the Learned Magistrate’s Judgment, it was established that the accused was 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. The same was confirmed by the Presentence report produced by the probation officer. There is nowhere in the record of proceedings the issue of the age of the accused was in contestation. The applicant even had the chance to object the same upon sentencing of the respondent.
It is also important to note that the request made by the applicant to order an investigation into the age of the respondent is untenable. It seems from the reading of Section 362, an application for revision ought to be lodged in order to examine the record of any criminal proceedings before a subordinate court so as to satisfy itself in light of the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings. The record of proceedings herein does not show any kind of incorrectness, illegality and impropriety whatsoever. In my view, the court in a case like the one at hand should only look into what is contained in the record of proceedings and not anything outside its contents.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the applicant’s application for revision of the trial court’s decisions on age of the respondent is hereby denied for want of merit.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT MALINDI THIS 1ST OF OCTOBER 2020
...........................
R. NYAKUNDI
JUDGE
In the presence of
1. Mr. Alenga for the state
2. Respondent in person