[2024] KEHC 10529 (KLR)
The court held that it had already exercised its jurisdiction to revise the Applicant's sentence pursuant to the Supreme Court's guidance in the Muruatetu case, substituting the death penalty with a 30-year sentence. As such, the court is now functus officio and cannot entertain a further application for review of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 10529 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Zablon Shikunzi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application E027 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review of Sentence and Conviction
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- SC Chirchir
- Legal Topics
- Review of Sentence, Conviction Challenge, Jurisdiction of High Court, Functus Officio, Abuse of Court 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
Zablon Shikunzi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review of Sentence and Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review its own orders after a re-sentencing has already been conducted.
- 2 Whether the High Court can set aside a conviction that has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
- 3 Whether the application amounts to an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it had already exercised its jurisdiction to revise the Applicant's sentence pursuant to the Supreme Court's guidance in the Muruatetu case, substituting the death penalty with a 30-year sentence. As such, the court is now functus officio and cannot entertain a further application for review of sentence or conviction. Additionally, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or set aside a conviction that has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal, as its revisionary powers under Article 165(6) of the Constitution are limited to decisions of subordinate courts. The Applicant's attempt to challenge the conviction and sentence again amounts to an abuse of the court process...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 23/7/2023 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Shikunzi v Republic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E027 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 10529 (KLR) (26 August 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 10529 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E027 of 2023
SC Chirchir, J
August 26, 2024
Between
Zablon Shikunzi
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. What is coming up for determination is the Notice of motion dated 23/7/2023.
2. The Applicant has filed a series of documents, some which it is difficult to tell what exactly the Applicant is seeking for . However, after re-reading the documents a few times what I can decipher is that the Applicant is seeking a review of sentence . He has also asked this court to set aside the conviction.
Determination 3. In April 2010, the Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by Justice Lenaola. He moved to the court of Appeal under Kisumu Court of Appeal case No. 371 of 2012 to challenge both the conviction and sentence and the Appeal was dismissed on both grounds.
4. Nevertheless, he applied for re-sentencing under MISC. APP. NO. 23/2015 prompted by the supreme court decision in Francis Miruatetu & Ano vs. Republic (2017) eKLR. In a ruling delivered on 26/8/2021, Justice Musyoka set aside the death sentence and substituted with 30 years.
5. The Applicant has made another trip to this court to complain about the same issues, namely allegation of wrongful conviction and harsh sentence.
6. The sentence has been revised by this court, pursuant to the directions given in Muruatetu case before and consequently this court has become functio officio.
7. In any event, the revisionary powers of the High Court under Article 165(6) of the Constitution is limited to revision of the lower court decisions but not a court of concurrent jurisdiction. This court therefore has no jurisdiction to revise Justice Musyoka’s orders.
8. On the conviction, the Applicant’s prayer is again is misplaced. The conviction of this court was affirmed by the court of Appeal. The Applicant’s attempt to seek what is tantamount to an appeal from this court against the decision of the Court of Appeal is mischievous , an act of vexations and an abuse and misuse of the court process.
9. The Application is hereby dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI, VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS, THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024. S.CHIRCHIRJUDGEIn the presence of:Godwin- Court AssistantZablon Shikunzi- The Applicant.