[2012] KEHC 2953 (KLR)
The court held that Article 50(2)(q) of the Constitution guarantees the right to appeal or apply for review by a higher court as prescribed by law, which in this context is the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners either withdrew their appeals or had their appeals determined according to the law, and did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2953 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Zakayo Nyaingo Ibencho; Applicant: Kennedy Otieno Mwango; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 241 & 242 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petitions dismissed
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Right to Fair Trial, Sentence Review, Community Service Orders, 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
Zakayo Nyaingo Ibencho
Applicant
Kennedy Otieno Mwango
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 50(2)(q) of the Constitution to substitute a custodial sentence with a non-custodial sentence under the Community Service Order Act, 1998.
- 2 Whether the petitioners can seek review of their sentences through a constitutional petition rather than the procedures prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that Article 50(2)(q) of the Constitution guarantees the right to appeal or apply for review by a higher court as prescribed by law, which in this context is the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners either withdrew their appeals or had their appeals determined according to the law, and did not pursue the available statutory procedure for revision. The court found that the constitutional right to review cannot be invoked to circumvent the procedures established by statute. In the absence of any other breach of fundamental rights or freedoms, the court lacks jurisdiction to substitute the sentences through a constitutional petition. Consequently, the petitions were...
Court Disposition
petitions dismissed
Orders
- The petitions are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA ATNAIROBI
PETITION 241 OF 2012
ZAKAYO NYAINGO IBENCHO.....................................................................................PETITIONER
AND
THE DIRECTOROF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.....................................................RESPONDENT
CONSOLIDATED WITH
PETITION NO. 242 OF 2012
KENNEDY OTIENO MWANGO....................................................................................PETITIONER
AND
THE DIRECTOROF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.....................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Introduction
1. It is convenient to consolidate these petitions as they deal with common issues of fact and law concerning the issue whether the petitioners’ sentence of imprisonment should be substituted with a non-custodial sentence under the Community Service Order Act, 2008 pursuant to Article 50(2)(q) of the Constitution.
Zakayo Nyaingo Ibencho’s Case
2. The petitioner is a prisoner at Kamiti Maximum Prison. He has commenced these proceedings by a Notice of Motion filed on 6th June 2012 where he seeks the following orders;
(a)That the court may be pleased to substitute the remainder of the applicant’s sentence with a Community Service Order.
(b)That prayer (a) be considered on health and compassionate grounds.
(c)That the court be pleased to make further orders that it may deem fit and just to grant.
3. According to his affidavit sworn on 4th June 2012 in support of the application, the petitioner states that he was tried and convicted on 3rd March 2008 in Kibera Chief Magistrates Court Criminal Case No. 7593 of 2007 for the offence of robbery. He was sentenced to serve six years in prison. He withdrew his appeal against conviction and sentence.
4. The petitioner seeks to be released from prison on the ground that he is sick and has completed a substantial part of his sentence. He requests the court to substitute the remaining part of his sentence with a non-custodial sentence by applying the Community Service Order Act, 1998.
Kennedy Otieno Mwango’s Case
5. The petitioner is a prisoner at Kamiti Maximum Prison. He has commenced these proceedings by a Notice of Motion filed on 6th June 2012 where he seeks the following orders;
(a)That the court may be pleased to substitute the remainder of the applicant’s sentence with a Community Service Order.
(b)That prayer (a) be considered on health and compassionate grounds.
(c)That the court be pleased to make further orders that it may deem fit and just to grant.
6. According to his affidavit sworn on 4th June 2012 in support of the application, the petitioner states that he was tried and convicted in Kibera Chief Magistrates Court Criminal Case No. 2376 of 2009 for the offence of stealing. He was sentenced to serve four years in prison. His appeal against conviction and sentence was upheld by the High Court.
7. The petitioner seeks to be released from prison on the ground that he is sick and has completed a substantial part of his sentence. He requests the court to substitute the remaining part of his sentence with a non-custodial sentence by applying the Community Service Order Act, 1998 as he has sufficiently reformed to join the society as a law abiding citizen.
Disposition
8. The petitioners aver that the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 50(2)(q) to review their custodial sentences. Article 50(2)(q) provides, “Every accused person has a right to a fair trial which includes .. (q) if convicted, to appeal to, or to apply for review by, a higher court as prescribed by law.” [Emphasis mine]
9. The right protected by Article 50(2)(q) is that that provided for by law enacted for that purpose. The applicable law is the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 75 of the Laws of Kenya) which sets out the right of appeal against conviction and sentence and the procedure for revision under Part XI of the Act.
10. The 1st petitioner concedes that he withdrew his appeal. He has also not applied for revision of the sentence which is an option available to him under the Criminal Procedure Code. The 2nd petitioner appealed to the High Court and it was determined in accordance with the law.
11. Although the procedure provided in Article 22 is without prejudice to any other right that may be available to the petitioners, the right protected by Article 50(2)(q) is that prescribed by the law and that law cannot be circumvented by filing a petition for review outside the provisions “prescribed by the law.”
12. In the circumstances, while I sympathise with the petitioners, the Constitution and the law does not permit me to intervene in the absence of any other breach of the petitioner’s fundamental right and freedoms.
13. The petitions are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
DATEDand DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 16th day of July 2012.
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE