[2022] KEHC 12889 (KLR)
The court held that the judgment on resentencing was clear and required no further interpretation. The sentence was to commence from the date of first incarceration as expressly stated in the resentencing judgment. The application for interpretation was therefore unmeritorious and dismissed, as the applicants failed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 12889 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Ndungu Wairimu; Applicant: Samuel Murugi Karanja; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Naivasha
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E160 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Interpretation of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Sentencing Review, Interpretation of Judgment
- 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
Samuel Ndungu Wairimu
Applicant
Samuel Murugi Karanja
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Interpretation of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judgment on resentencing required clarification regarding the commencement date of the applicants' sentence.
- 2 Whether the sentence computation should begin from the date of remand or conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the judgment on resentencing was clear and required no further interpretation. The sentence was to commence from the date of first incarceration as expressly stated in the resentencing judgment. The application for interpretation was therefore unmeritorious and dismissed, as the applicants failed to demonstrate any ambiguity or confusion in the judgment that warranted judicial clarification.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for interpretation of the judgment is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Wairimu & another v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E160 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 12889 (KLR) (9 September 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 12889 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Naivasha
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E160 of 2021
LN Mutende, J
September 9, 2022
Between
Samuel Ndungu Wairimu
1st Applicant
Samuel Murugi Karanja
2nd Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Samuel Ndungu Wairimu, and Samuel Murugi Karanja, the applicants were arraigned for the offences of Robbery with Violence. Each count had an alternative charge of handling stolen property.
2. Having been taken through full trial, the court found them guilty on both counts of Robbery with Violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code, convicted and sentenced them to suffer death on the first count, while the sentence for the second count was to be held in abeyance.
3. Aggrieved, they appealed and C. Meoli J. who presided over the matter dismissed the appeal.
4. Through an application for review following the decision of Muruatetu &anothervRepublic (2017) eKLR the applicants were re-sentenced by Mwongo J. The death sentence was set aside and substituted with a sentence of twenty (20) years imprisonment. At paragraph 31, the court delivered itself thus;"Taking all the above matters into account, I think the appropriate orders should be as follows:a.The 1st and 2nd applicant are each hereby sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment commencing on the date of their first incarceration.b.Should the applicants maintain good conduct and discipline for the next three (3) years, they shall be entitled to serve a Probationary sentence up to the time of their entitlement for remission.c.The Probation Officer shall design their probation programme and maintain a record of their attendance thereto.d.Should they or any one of them fail to maintain good conduct as set out in (b) above, the probation sentence shall forthwith stand revoked.”
5. In the instant application which is undated, but, file herein on October 21, 2021, the applicants seek interpretation of the Judgment. According to them there is a confusion regarding the manner in which the sentence should be computed; whether it is from the date the applicants were remanded or the date they were convicted.
6. I have perused the Judgment of this court alluded to. It is coherent and intelligible, therefore, it does not require any explanation.
7. In the result, I find the application being unmeritorious. Accordingly it is dismissed.
8. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIVASHA THIS 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022. L. MUTENDEJUDGE