1. The applicant in the application dated 18th May 2026 seeks the exercise of this court discretion in terms of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The background of this matter is that the applicant was charged before the Magistrate’s Court in Criminal Case Number S.O 1/2022, convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
3. Dissatisfied With conviction and sentence, the applicant filed an appeal before this court vide Cr. Appeal No. E043 of 2024. The Appeal was heard and Judgement rendered by my brother Onyiego J. who on 3/7/25 found no merit in the Appeal and dismissed the same.
4. Being one not to give up easily, the applicant again filed a Petition E002/26 which came before me. In my ruling, I determination that the petition sought to re-open a matter that had been heard and concluded on appeal.
5. unrelenting, the applicant now urges this court to consider reduction of his sentence to take into account the period served in custody.
6. The applicant has exhausted all the avenues available to him and now improperly invokes the provisions of Section 333(2) of CPC. This section does not apply in situations where the law provides for a mandatory minimum sentence such as in this case.
7. Consequently, the application dated 18/5/2026 is an abuse of the court’s process and is dismissed.
2. The background of this matter is that the applicant was charged before the Magistrate’s Court in Criminal Case Number S.O 1/2022, convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
3. Dissatisfied With conviction and sentence, the applicant filed an appeal before this court vide Cr. Appeal No. E043 of 2024. The Appeal was heard and Judgement rendered by my brother Onyiego J. who on 3/7/25 found no merit in the Appeal and dismissed the same.
4. Being one not to give up easily, the applicant again filed a Petition E002/26 which came before me. In my ruling, I determination that the petition sought to re-open a matter that had been heard and concluded on appeal.
5. unrelenting, the applicant now urges this court to consider reduction of his sentence to take into account the period served in custody.
6. The applicant has exhausted all the avenues available to him and now improperly invokes the provisions of Section 333(2) of CPC. This section does not apply in situations where the law provides for a mandatory minimum sentence such as in this case.
7. Consequently, the application dated 18/5/2026 is an abuse of the court’s process and is dismissed.