[2024] KEHC 4334 (KLR)
The High Court held that it was functus officio, having already determined the applicant's appeal on both conviction and sentence. The doctrine of functus officio, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, bars the court from revisiting or reviewing its own final decision except as expressly permitted by law. Since the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 4334 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: SMA; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 154 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence After Appeal Determined
- Outcome
- application struck out for want of jurisdiction; court functus officio
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Incest Offence, Sentencing Review, Remand Custody Credit, Functus Officio, Revisionary Jurisdiction
- 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
SMA
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence After Appeal Determined
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review a sentence after the appeal has been determined to finality.
- 2 Whether time spent in remand custody should be considered after conviction and sentence have been upheld on appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that it was functus officio, having already determined the applicant's appeal on both conviction and sentence. The doctrine of functus officio, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, bars the court from revisiting or reviewing its own final decision except as expressly permitted by law. Since the applicant's appeal had been fully adjudicated and the sentence substituted, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a further application for review of sentence, including consideration of time spent in remand custody. The application was therefore incompetent and struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
application struck out for want of jurisdiction; court functus officio
Orders
- The application for review of sentence is struck out.
- The court is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to determine the matter.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
SMA v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 154 of 2019) [2024] KEHC 4334 (KLR) (Crim) (15 April 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 4334 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 154 of 2019
LN Mutende, J
April 15, 2024
Between
SMA
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. SMW, the applicant, was convicted by the lower court for the offence of incest and sentenced to serve thirty (30) years imprisonment. Aggrieved he appealed to the High Court which upheld the conviction but interfered with the sentence that was set aside and substituted it with twenty (20) years imprisonment.
2. Through an undated application, the applicant seeks review of sentence so that time spent in remand custody can be considered.
3. Revisionary Jurisdiction cannot be invoked where a party has filed an appeal. The appellant’s appeal was heard and determined to finality therefore issues raised cannot arise. This court would therefore not have Jurisdiction to determine the matter as it is functus officio.
4. The Supreme Court expounding on the doctrine of functus officio in Raila Odinga & Others vs. IEBC & Others [2013] eklr citing with approval an excerpt from an article by Daniel Malan Pretorius, in “The Origins of the functus officio Doctrine, with Specific Reference to its Application in Administrative Law,” (2005) 122 SALJ 832 stated thus:“The functus officio doctrine is one of the mechanisms by means of which the law gives expression to the principle of finality. According to this doctrine, a person who is vested with adjudicative or decision-making powers may, as a general rule, exercise those powers only once in relation to the same matter.… The [principle] is that once such a decision has been given, it is (subject to any right of appeal to a superior body or functionary) final and conclusive. Such a decision cannot be revoked or varied by the decision-maker.”
5. The upshot of the above is that this court being functus officio is not seized of jurisdiction to determine the matter. In the result, the application fails and is struck out.
6. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI, THIS 15THDAY OF APRIL, 2024. L. N. MUTENDEJUDGEIn The Presence Of:Court Assistant – Gladys