[2022] KEHC 11183 (KLR)
The court found that the discrepancy between the handwritten/pronounced sentence (fifty years imprisonment) and the typed ruling (forty years imprisonment) was a typographical error in the typed ruling. The court held that the authentic sentence is that which was pronounced and recorded in the handwritten...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 11183 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: State; Respondent: Thomas Owuor Oluoch
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E008 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Correction of Sentence
- Outcome
- Correction of sentence; error in typed ruling rectified to reflect fifty years imprisonment as originally pronounced.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Error, Correction of Judgment, Murder Offence, Committal Warrant, Procedural Irregularity
- 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
State
Applicant
Thomas Owuor Oluoch
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Correction of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the discrepancy between the handwritten/pronounced sentence and the typed ruling constitutes an error requiring correction.
- 2 Whether the court has the power to correct a typographical error in the typed ruling on sentence without occasioning a failure of justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the discrepancy between the handwritten/pronounced sentence (fifty years imprisonment) and the typed ruling (forty years imprisonment) was a typographical error in the typed ruling. The court held that the authentic sentence is that which was pronounced and recorded in the handwritten proceedings and committal warrant. Pursuant to section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court has the authority to correct such errors where they do not occasion a failure of justice. The court therefore corrected the typed ruling to reflect the fifty-year sentence as originally pronounced and ordered that the corrected ruling be sent to Kenya Law Reporting for proper record. The...
Court Disposition
Correction of sentence; error in typed ruling rectified to reflect fifty years imprisonment as originally pronounced.
Orders
- The error in the typed ruling is corrected to read fifty (50) years imprisonment instead of forty (40) years.
- The corrected ruling of 15/2/2022 together with this ruling shall be sent to Kenya Law Reporting for uploading.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
State v Oluoch (Criminal Case E008 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 11183 (KLR) (15 June 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 11183 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Siaya
Criminal Case E008 of 2020
RE Aburili, J
June 15, 2022
Between
State
Prosecution
and
Thomas Owour Oluoch
Accused
Ruling
1. I have perused the letter dated 3/6/2022 from Naivasha Maximum Security Prison, Paralegal Office.
2. From the said letter and the attached Ruling on sentence, it is claimed that the accused/convict herein Thomas Owuor Oluoch was sentenced to serve forty (40) years imprisonment but that the committal warrant reads fifty (50) years imprisonment. The letter seeks for clarification and correction of the committal warrants for the convict.
3. I have perused the proceedings taken by this court on 15/2/2022 and the draft Ruling which is by hand in the said file. I have also perused the committal warrant issued on 15/2/2022 pursuant to the sentence passed on the said date following the conviction of the accused person herein for the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code.
4. This court wrote and pronounced itself clearly to the effect that the convict was sentenced to serve fifty (50) years imprisonment to be calculated from the date of his arrest as he had been in prison custody during the trial.
5. However, when the said Ruling was typed which typed Ruling is still in the court file, the sentence reads forty (40) years imprisonment. The said typed Ruling is what was uploaded on the kenyalaw.org.
6. I have considered the handwritten and pronounced Ruling and the committal warrant. They are not in conflict. What is in conflict with the pronounced Ruling and committal warrant is the typed ruling on sentence which ruling was send to Kenya Law Reports and which the convict herein accessed prompting his writing to this court through the prisons authorities, paralegal office.
7. I find that it was the typed Ruling which has an error which is a typing error and which error is rectifiable by this Court. I therefore hereby correct the error in the typed Ruling and substitute the error of the typing of forty (40) years imprisonment with fifty (50) years imprisonment as pronounced by the court and as per the handwritten proceedings and the committal warrant which are original and authenticate proceedings.
8. I am guided by the provisions of section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that:“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, Judgement or other proceeding 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.”
9. I further order that the corrected Ruling of 15/2/2022 together with this Ruling shall be send to Kenya Law Reporting for uploading and I hereby recall the earlier typed ruling on sentence as submitted to Kenyalaw.org.
10. Orders accordingly. The file is closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA, THIS 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2022R.E. ABURILIJUDGE