[2024] KEHC 2172 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to resentence or revise a sentence that has already been upheld by a court of concurrent jurisdiction. The application, though styled as a resentencing or constitutional redress, is in substance an appeal against a decision of a court of equal authority, which is impermissible in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 2172 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Hillary Kimutai Rono; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kilgoris
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E015 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Application for Resentencing/revision After Conviction and Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Defilement Offence, Sentencing Principles, Revision Jurisdiction, Presidential Pardon, Minimum Sentence, Remand Period Credit
- 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
Hillary Kimutai Rono
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Application for Resentencing/revision After Conviction and Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to resentence or revise a sentence already upheld by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a lesser or definite sentence under articles 50(2)(p) and (q) of the Constitution and section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 3 Whether the appropriate avenue for relief is judicial review or presidential pardon.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to resentence or revise a sentence that has already been upheld by a court of concurrent jurisdiction. The application, though styled as a resentencing or constitutional redress, is in substance an appeal against a decision of a court of equal authority, which is impermissible in law. The proper avenue for seeking a lesser sentence or redress after dismissal of an appeal is the Court of Appeal or, alternatively, a petition for presidential pardon under Article 133 of the Constitution. The application is therefore dismissed as an abuse of process and for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for resentencing or sentence revision is dismissed.
- Any further redress should be sought in the Court of Appeal or by petitioning for presidential pardon.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Rono v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E015 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 2172 (KLR) (6 March 2024) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 2172 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kilgoris
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E015 of 2022
F Gikonyo, J
March 6, 2024
Between
Hillary Kimutai Rono
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Revision from Original Conviction/Sentence) in Kilgoris SPMCR No. 828 of 2013 and Kisii HCCRA No. 69 of 2014)
Judgment
Sentence re-hearing 1. Before this court for determination is an undated chamber summons seeking for an award of lenient definite sentence as provided under articles 50(2)(p) and (q) of the Constitution, and that this court invoke the provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and factor the period spent in remand.
2. The applicant was charged and convicted of the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
3. The applicant filed an appeal vide Kisii HCCRA no. 69 of 2014. The appeal was dismissed.
4. The applicant orally submitted that he is reformed. He urged this court to place him on probation.
5. Mr. Okeyo prosecution counsel opposed the application. He urged this court to dismiss the application as the applicant ought to have applied for a presidential pardon.
Analysis And Determination Jurisdiction and possible abuse of process 6. The court (Majanja J) in KISII HCCRA No 69 of 2014 analyzed all relevant mitigating as well as aggravating factors. Subsequently, the judge stated that the trial court had sentenced the applicant to the minimum sentence provided in section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act. And, uphold the said sentence.
7. Therefore, although the application is styled as ‘resentencing’ and is brought as ‘an application for redress of violation of a right and fundamental freedoms’ under article 165(3) and 23(3) of the Constitution, its real character is an appeal against the judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction (Majanja J.).
8. In law, judges of concurrent jurisdictions stand between themselves in a horizontal or non-hierarchical order as they are of equal legal authority, with none having jurisdiction to sit on appeal on decisions by or supervise a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
Of presidential pardon 9. The prosecution counsel submitted that the applicant ought to have applied for presidential pardon.
10. Although he did not specifically mention it, the prosecution counsel must have been referring to the ‘Power of mercy’ provided in article 133 of the Constitution as follows1. On the petition of any person, the President may exercise a power of mercy in accordance with the advice of the Advisory Committee established under clause (2), by -a.granting a free or conditional pardon to a person convicted of an offence;b.postponing the carrying out of a punishment, either for a specified or indefinite period;c.substituting a less severe form of punishment; ord.remitting all or part of a punishment
11. See also article 133(4) of the Constitution which provides that: -The Advisory Committee may take into account the views of the victims of the offence in respect of which it is considering making recommendations to the President
12. Be that as it may, in the circumstances of this case, any redress within the judicial system including, lesser or less severe sentence, is to be sought in the Court of Appeal.
13. In the upshot, the application is dismissed.
14. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAROK THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION THIS 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024…………………………….HON. F. GIKONYO M.JUDGEIn the presence of:C/A – Mr. LekenApplicant - PresentMr. Okeyo for DPP - Present