[2023] KEHC 20566 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 20566 (KLR)

The court found that there was no order by the trial court directing that the sentences for count I and count II were to run consecutively. The sentences were meted out separately, and the applicant must have served the sentence for count II as ordered. Since there was no order subject to revision regarding...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 20566 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Fredrick Odhiambo Were; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E042 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Concurrent Sentencing
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Revision of Sentence
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences Revision of Sentence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fredrick Odhiambo Were

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Concurrent Sentencing

  1. 1 Whether the High Court can order the applicant's sentences to run concurrently where no such order was made by the trial court.
  2. 2 Whether there exists an order subject to revision regarding the concurrency or consecutiveness of the applicant's sentences.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no order by the trial court directing that the sentences for count I and count II were to run consecutively. The sentences were meted out separately, and the applicant must have served the sentence for count II as ordered. Since there was no order subject to revision regarding concurrency or consecutiveness, the application was found to be incompetent and lacking in merit. The court dismissed the application in its entirety, holding that it could not interfere with the sentences as previously revised and imposed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application filed on March 31, 2023 is dismissed wholly.