https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11647

Mbugua v Republic (Criminal Revision E076 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11647 (KLR) (Crim) (14 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11647 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Criminal Criminal Revision E076 of 2025 AM Muteti, J July 14, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLE 50(2) (Q) 51(2) 165 (3) (A) (B) (D) (1) (II) (5) (6) (7) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 327(3) 346, 362, 364 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (CAP 75) LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF: INVOCATION OF SECTION 216 AND OR 329 AND 333 (2) OF THE C.P.C AND IN THE MATTER OF: SENTENCE REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE HIGH COURT CONSOLIDATED CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. E002 AND E003 OF 2024 AT VIHIGA Between Stephen Njau Mbugua Applicant and Republic Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant in this matter filed the instant application for review of sentence under Section 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Paragraph 4.8 of the Sentencing policy guidelines, 2023. 2.The applicant sought the following orders: -a.That, may this Hon. Court be pleased to grant this resentencing application filed, heard and determined on priority basis for interest of justice.b.That, may this Hon. Court be pleased to grant an order that will render sentence rehearing and determination of the appropriate sentence to substitute the imposed mandatory death penalty.c.That, may this Hon. Court be pleased to grant an order that will render the reconsideration of the applicant further mitigation inter alia relevant factors of consideration in determination as to the appropriate proportionate sentence to substitute the original mandatory death sentence.d.That, may this Hon. Court be pleased to give other order deem fit, just, and reasonable in the circumstances of this application. 3.The applicant urged the court to consider granting the application in the interests of justice. 4.The application was supported by the annexed affidavit of contents of which have been fully considered by the court. 5.At the hearing of the application the applicant told this court that he was seeking a review of sentence. 6.He argued that he was charged with Robbery with violence and sentenced to death which sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal and judgment was delivered in the year 2017 dismissing the appeal. 7.The appellant submitted that they were two appellants in the Court of Appeal and his co-appellant was later re-sentenced by the Lower Court to a prison term which he says she has since completed. 8.The applicant therefore urged this court to consider reviewing his life imprisonment to a definite prison term on that account. 9.In response to the applicant’s submissions, Mr. Mogere counsel for the state submitted that the appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed thus resentencing cannot happen. 10.Counsel informed the court that the co-accused was resentenced pursuant to the Muruatetu II decision thus there is no case for resentencing. 11.The prosecution counsel urged the court not to entertain the application because to do so, the court would be acting without jurisdiction. 12.This court has considered the application as well as the arguments advanced in favor of the same by the applicant as well as the arguments in opposition by counsel for the state. 13.It is the finding of this court that the jurisdiction of the court has been improperly invoked and considering that the applicant’s matter was heard in the Court of Appeal and determined this court cannot overturn the decision of the court of appeal. If the court were to do so it would be acting without jurisdiction thus the decision would be a nullity ab initio, See Owners of Motor Vessel Lillian “S”Vs Caltex Oil (K) Ltd (Civil Appeal 50 of 1989) [1989] KECA 48 (KLR). 14.In Samuel Kamau Macharia & anor vs Kenyac Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others [2012] Eklr, the Supreme Court held:“A Court’s jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law.” 3.The High court cannot review a decision of the Court of Appeal thus this application is misconceived and is hereby dismissed in its entirety. 3.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.A. M. MUTETIJUDGEIn the presence of:Habiba: Court AssistantApplicant AbsentMs Mogere for Respondent