[2020] KEHC 3104 (KLR)
The High Court held that it was functus officio after confirming the applicant's conviction and sentence on appeal, and therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the re-sentencing application. The court found no error, irregularity, or illegality in its previous decision upholding the sentence. Since the applicant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 3104 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Simon Ngole Katunga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 124 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Re Sentencing Application After Conviction and Sentence Upheld on Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- BC Koech
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sentencing Review, Functus Officio, Hierarchy of Courts
- 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
Simon Ngole Katunga
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Re Sentencing Application After Conviction and Sentence Upheld on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review or re-sentence the applicant after confirming conviction and sentence on appeal.
- 2 Whether the doctrine of functus officio precludes the High Court from entertaining the re-sentencing application.
- 3 Whether any error, irregularity, or illegality occurred in the confirmation of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it was functus officio after confirming the applicant's conviction and sentence on appeal, and therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the re-sentencing application. The court found no error, irregularity, or illegality in its previous decision upholding the sentence. Since the applicant had already lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal, any further challenge to the sentence should be addressed in that forum, in accordance with the hierarchy of courts. The application for re-sentencing was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The applicant’s application filed on 31.7.2019 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
Coram: D. K. Kemei – J
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPL.NO. 124 OF 2019
SIMON NGOLE KATUNGA...............APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.........................................RESPONDENT
RULING ON RE-SENTENSING
1. Simon Ngole Katunga, the Applicant herein was charged with defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act.
2. The Applicant pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to full hearing. He was convicted of the count he was charged and the trial court sentenced him to serve life imprisonment.
3. The Applicant was aggrieved by that decision of the trial court and filed an appeal to the High Court against both the conviction and sentence. The appeal was duly heard. A judgment was delivered on 19. 4.2018 by this court. The judgement confirmed the conviction and the sentence of the trial court.
4. The Applicant did file a notice of appeal with intention to appeal against the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal. In addition, the applicant did file a new application before this court in which he seeks review of sentence pursuant to the decision in Evans Wanjala Wanyonyi (2019) eKLR.
5. In S v Ndlovu 2012 (1) ZLR 393 the Zambian High Court observed that sentencing must utilize an engendered approach and a constitutional and human rights perspective and from the import of the functus officio doctrine the applicant is not entitled to resentencing.
6. Once a court becomes functus officio, the only orders it can grant are review orders which are an exception to the functus officio doctrine. The Supreme Court in Raila Odinga & 2 Others vs. Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 3 others [2013] eKLR stated that:
“A court is functus when it has performed all its duties in a particular case. The doctrine does not prevent the court from correcting clerical errors nor does it prevent a judicial change of mind even when a decision has been communicated to the parties. Proceedings are only fully concluded, and the court functus, when its judgment or order has been perfected. The purpose of the doctrine is to provide finality. Once proceedings are finally concluded, the court cannot review or alter its decision; any challenge to its ruling or adjudication must be taken to a higher court if that right is available.”
7. Section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for instances where finding or sentence are reversible by reason of error or omission in charge or other proceedings.It states that:
“Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account of an error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during the trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, unless the error, omission or irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice:
Provided that in determining whether an error, omission or irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the question whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.”
8. I find no error or irregularity or illegality of principle when the court upheld the sentence of the trial court.
9. Further, the matter is already in the Court of Appeal and handling the application on its merits would be tantamount to concurrent consideration of the matter and hence a disregard for the hierarchy of courts. In this regard the applicant’s application ought to be directed to the Court of Appeal where his appeal is pending consideration. As noted above, this court is already functus officio in the matter and it is appropriate for the applicant to proceed to the Court of Appeal where he has already lodged an appeal for redress.
10. In the result, the applicant’s application filed on 31. 7.2019 lacks merit. The same is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 17thday of September,2020.
D. K. Kemei
Judge