[2024] KEHC 2899 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or interfere with a judgment delivered by another judge of equal status in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record. The applicant, being dissatisfied with the sentence imposed by the High Court on appeal, should have sought recourse by appealing to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 2899 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mary Wambui Wanjuri; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E027 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- HI Ong'udi
- Legal Topics
- Review of Sentence, Jurisdiction of High Court, Robbery With Violence, Gang Rape, Appellate Procedure
- 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
Mary Wambui Wanjuri
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review its own judgment in a criminal appeal where the applicant is dissatisfied with the sentence imposed.
- 2 Whether the applicant should seek redress by way of appeal to the Court of Appeal rather than by review before the High Court.
- 3 Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record to warrant review of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or interfere with a judgment delivered by another judge of equal status in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record. The applicant, being dissatisfied with the sentence imposed by the High Court on appeal, should have sought recourse by appealing to the Court of Appeal rather than seeking review before the High Court. There is no legal or factual basis for the High Court to revisit or alter the sentence previously imposed, and the application for review is therefore without merit and must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application filed on 19th January, 2023 is dismissed for lack of merit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Wanjuri v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E027 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 2899 (KLR) (20 March 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 2899 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E027 of 2023
HI Ong'udi, J
March 20, 2024
Between
Mary Wambui Wanjuri
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Arising from the Judgment delivered by Justice Chemitei in Nakuru High Court Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2019 on 10th March, 2022)
Ruling
1. The applicant Mary Wambui Wanjiru was charged and convicted on count 1 for the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code and on count II for the offence of Gang rape contrary to section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006, in Nakuru CM’s Criminal Case No. 2167 of 2018. On 16th May 2019 she was sentenced to death on count I and 20-years imprisonment on count II. She appealed the lower court’s decision vide Nakuru High Court Criminal Appeal No 41 of 2019 and in a Judgment, dated 10th March, 2022 this court substituted the death sentence with a custodial sentence of 20 years and upheld the sentence on count II. Both sentences were to run concurrently.
2. She filed the instant application on 19th January 2023 seeking a review of the sentence imposed on both counts. The application was supported by her affidavit of even date. She deposed that her appeal to the Court of Appeal was never done as a result of her being satisfied with the sentences imposed by the appellate court. She cited the Court of Appeal decision in Benard Mulwa Musyoka Vs Republic Criminal Appeal no. 25 of 2016 where the said court affirmed that the supreme court did not prohibit courts below it from ordering sentence rehearing in any in any matter pending before those courts.
3. She deposed further that this court had jurisdiction under article 165(3)(b) of the constitution of Kenya 2010 to hear and determine this matter. She urged the court to waive the costs of the application.
4. The respondent filed a replying affidavit dated 25th February 2024 sworn by Edwin Konga, the prosecution counsel. He averred that this court could not overrule the decision of another court with similar jurisdiction. He averred further that the applicant herein should have filed an appeal with the superior court so that the issue of sentencing could be relooked at if she was dissatisfied with the sentence meted out by the high court. He added that the prayer for re-sentencing sought by the applicant could not be granted and therefore the same should be dismissed.
5. I have perused the record herein. This court heard the Applicant’s Appeal No. 41 of 2019 and delivered its Judgment on 10th March, 2024 partially allowing the Appeal. From the application filed herein it is clear that the Applicant was not satisfied with the Judgment of 10th March, 2022. The court that delivered the Judgment is one of equal status with the one sitting. There is no error apparent on the face of the record which would make this court interfere with the said Judgment by way of review. Let the applicant move to the Court of Appeal to challenge the Judgment delivered by Chemitei J on 10th March, 2022.
6. The undated application filed on 19th January, 2023 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
7. Orders accordingly
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 IN OPEN COURT AT NAKURU.H. I. ONG’UDIJUDGE