[2023] KEHC 21913 (KLR)
The High Court held that it is functus officio in relation to the applicant's request for re-sentencing, as the matter had already been conclusively determined by both the High Court and the Chief Magistrate's Court, following the Supreme Court's clarification in Muruatetu 2 that the decision on the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 21913 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Tobiko Ole Sandera; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Naivasha
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E029 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Re Sentencing
- Outcome
- application struck out
- Judges
- GL Nzioka
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Re Sentencing, Functus Officio, Abuse of Process
- 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
Tobiko Ole Sandera
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Re Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to re-sentencing for the offence of robbery with violence in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in the Muruatetu cases.
- 2 Whether the High Court is functus officio in relation to the applicant's request for re-sentencing.
- 3 Whether the applicant's repeated applications for re-sentencing constitute an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it is functus officio in relation to the applicant's request for re-sentencing, as the matter had already been conclusively determined by both the High Court and the Chief Magistrate's Court, following the Supreme Court's clarification in Muruatetu 2 that the decision on the unconstitutionality of the mandatory death sentence does not apply to robbery with violence. The applicant's repeated applications for re-sentencing constitute an abuse of court process, and the court therefore struck out the application. The court emphasized that the applicant should desist from regurgitating matters already dealt with to finality.
Court Disposition
application struck out
Orders
- The application for re-sentencing is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Sandera v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E029 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 21913 (KLR) (10 August 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 21913 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Naivasha
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E029 of 2022
GL Nzioka, J
August 10, 2023
Between
Tobiko Ole Sandera
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. By an undated chamber summons application filed in court on May 17, 2022, the applicant is seeking re-sentencing in the criminal case number 717 of 1997 at the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Naivasha, where he was charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code, cap 63 of the Laws of Kenya.
2. The application is supported by the applicant’s undated affidavit in which he avers that his appeal to the High Court was dismissed in its entirety vide High Court criminal appeal No 1038 of 1998, at Nairobi.
3. That this court has the jurisdiction under article 165 (3) of theConstitution of Kenya , 2010 to hear this matter and under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, (cap 75) of the Laws of Kenya.
4. The application was opposed vide submissions filed by the respondent which states; that the Supreme Court in Francis Muruatetu only pronounced the mandatory nature of death sentence as unconstitutional for the offence of robbery with violence, attempted robbery with violence and murder. That the effect of the decision was to give the trial court an opportunity to evaluate the circumstances of the case on a case to case basis in order to impose a suitable sentence. However, a court can still impose the death sentence where circumstances called for the same.
5. Further, that the decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic[2017] eKLR did not mean all convicts already in custody were to be set free or were to be sentenced to a set number of years or that it is mandatory for the court to review the sentence, as it can still confirm the death sentence already imposed.
6. In the present case, the applicant has six previous convictions allied to the nature of offence charged with. That, the in committing the offence the applicant and his accomplices entered peoples house by force, injured them, and robbed them of their items. That, the trial court considered the circumstances of the case and the applicant’s mitigation in imposing the sentence.
7. I have considered the application in the light of the materials before the court and note from the record that, upon being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the applicant appealed to the High Court as stated herein andHon Justice D.A. Onyancha and Hon Justice B. P. Kubo delivered a judgment vide HCCRA No 1038, of 1998, and dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
8. The applicant moved to the High Court seeking for re-sentencing on the basis of the decision in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic [2017] eKLR whereupon the Hon Justice R. Mwongo directed that the matter be referred to the Chief Magistrate for re-sentencing.
9. By an order dated September 9, 2021, the Chief Magistrate Hon K. Bidali, declined to consider the application for re-sentencing on the ground that the Supreme Court inMuruatetu 2clarified that the jurisprudence inMuruatetu 1 was not applicable in convictions of robbery with violence and referred the matter back to the presiding judge for directions.
10. On September 16, 2021 Hon Justice R. Mwongo, concurred with the Chief Magistrate that in light of the Supreme Court directions in Muruatetu 2 the subordinate courts lacked jurisdiction to conduct re-sentencing for robbery with violence. The Hon Judge vacated his orders of March 8, 2021 ordering for re-sentencing and dismissed the application for re-sentencing. The file was ordered closed
11. However, despite the aforesaid the applicant is seeking for re-sentencing again through this matter. It is clear that the applicant is abusing the due process of court by regurgitating matters already dealt to finality. This court is functus officio.
12. He should desist for that conduct. As a result of the aforesaid the application herein is struck out.
13. It is so ordered.
Dated, delivered and signed on this 10th day of August 2023GRACE L NZIOKAJUDGEIn the presence of:Applicant present virtuallyMr Atika for the RespondentMs Ogutu: Court Assistant