Robert Ndungu Gitau v Republic [2021] KEHC 9466 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 9466 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- DO Ogembo
- Case number
- Criminal Revision 409 of 2010
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- DO Ogembo
- Case number
- Criminal Revision 409 of 2010
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The High Court, acting on the remittal from the Court of Appeal, was limited to determining the issue of sentence. The appellant, having been informed that the mandatory sentence would remain 20 years, withdrew his appeal on sentence. Consequently, the original sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, as imposed on 15.11.2013, was reconfirmed and remains operative. The sentence is to run from the date of the original conviction.
Court disposition
Sentence of 20 years' imprisonment reconfirmed; to run from date of original conviction.
Orders
- The subject convict is to serve a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment.
- The sentence is to run from the date of the original conviction on 15.10.2013.
02
Material facts
Parties
Robert Ndungu Gitau
AppellantRepublic
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Term of Imprisonment: 20
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence After Appellate Remittal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant should be varied following the Court of Appeal's remittal.
- 02
Whether the withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant affects the sentence imposed.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought reconsideration of the sentence following the Court of Appeal's order remitting the matter to the High Court for determination of sentence only. The applicant was informed of the mandatory nature of the sentence and subsequently withdrew the appeal on sentence.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, as previously enhanced and confirmed by the High Court, should stand, especially after the appellant withdrew his appeal on sentence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court of Appeal Ruling of 29.9.2015
A court is bound by the remittal order of the appellate court and can only address the issue remitted, in this case, sentence.
- 02
High Court proceedings, 18.10.2016
Withdrawal of an appeal on sentence leaves the original sentence intact and reconfirmed.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The High Court, acting on the remittal from the Court of Appeal, was limited to determining the issue of sentence. The appellant, having been informed that the mandatory sentence would remain 20 years, withdrew his appeal on sentence. Consequently, the original sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, as imposed on 15.11.2013, was reconfirmed and remains operative. The sentence is to run from the date of the original conviction.
Court disposition
Sentence of 20 years' imprisonment reconfirmed; to run from date of original conviction.
- The subject convict is to serve a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment.
- The sentence is to run from the date of the original conviction on 15.10.2013.
Source and reliance status
High Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.409 OF 2010
(Originating from Kibera Criminal Case No. 2637 Of 2008 And Court of Appeal No. 47 Of 2015)
ROBERT NDUNGU GITAU..............................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC....................................................RESPONDENT
RULING:
I have considered the inquiry made by the Officer in Charge, Kamiti Medium Prison dated 27. 1.2021.
The sentence herein was enhanced by the Judgment of the Hon. Lady Justice Mary M. Gitumbi, on 15. 11.
2013. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal referred the matter back to the High Court only for determination of the issue of sentence (Ruling of 29. 9.2015).
Following the order of the Court of Appeal, the matter came up before Justice Ngenye on 18. 10.
2016. The court clearly informed the applicant that the mandatory sentence would still be 20 years. The appellant then withdrew his appeal entirely. He could only withdraw the appeal on sentence as ordered by the court. The consequence of this is that the order sentencing him to 20 years imprison on 15. 11. 2013 was reconfirmed.
The subject convict (former convict) herein is therefore to serve a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. The same to run from the date of the original conviction on 15. 10.
2013. I so order.
HON. D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
3. 2.2021.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.