[2019] KEHC 5665 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or alter its own sentencing decisions except in cases of typographical errors. The applicant's request for re-sentencing is, therefore, not properly before the court. The appropriate forum for challenging or seeking review of a High Court sentence is the Court of Appeal....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 5665 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Tom Mwangi Kamau; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 34 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Re Sentencing
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sentencing Review, Jurisdiction of High Court
- 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
Tom Mwangi Kamau
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Re Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review its own sentencing decision in the absence of typographical errors.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review or re-sentencing by the High Court after a previous appeal was determined.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or alter its own sentencing decisions except in cases of typographical errors. The applicant's request for re-sentencing is, therefore, not properly before the court. The appropriate forum for challenging or seeking review of a High Court sentence is the Court of Appeal. Since the applicant did not appeal to the Court of Appeal and there is no typographical error alleged or demonstrated, the application for re-sentencing is dismissed in its entirety.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for re-sentencing is dismissed in its entirety.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2018
TOM MWANGI KAMAU....................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC......................................................................................STATE
RULING UPON APPLICATION FOR RE-SENTENCING
1. Tom Mwangi Kamau, the Applicant herein was charged with five offences. In the first three offences, he was charged with defilement contrary to section 145(1) of the Penal Code (now repealed). The counts related to three different children aged 14 years old on diverse dates in 2004.
2. In the last two counts, the Applicant was charged with the offence of attempted defilement contrary to section 145(2) of the Penal Code. In the alternative, he was charged with indecent assault contrary to section 144(1) of the Penal Code. These two charges related to two other minors also aged 14 years old.
3. The Applicant pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to full hearing. He was convicted of all five counts. The Trial Court sentenced him to serve five years imprisonment on each count. The Court also ruled that the sentences were to run consecutively.
4. The Applicant was aggrieved by that decision of the Trial Court. He filed an appeal to the High Court against both the conviction and sentence. The appeal was duly heard. A judgment was delivered on 10/06/2011 by Lady Justice R.P.V. Wendoh. The judgment confirmed the conviction. It also enhanced the sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment on each count and ordered that the sentences run consecutively.
5. The Applicant was informed of his right of appeal. He did not appeal against the decision of the High Court. Instead, the Applicant has now filed a new Application before the High Court in which he seeks a review of his sentence.
6. Needless to say, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to review its own decisions on sentence absent obvious typographical errors on the face of the record. Here, the Applicant is asking the Court to exercise its discretion to review the sentencing decision of another High Court judge. It is an inappropriate application. Such an application can only be entertained by a higher Court – the Court of Appeal. There is nothing more to say about this Application. It is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
7. Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered in Nakuru this 17th day of July, 2019
........................
JOEL NGUGI
JUDGE