A. INTRODUCTION
1. This is a ruling on the revision application dated 25th March 2025 filed by the Applicant, Mr. Andrew Okoth Simba. The Applicant was originally sentenced to death for murder; that sentence was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment by the President of Kenya.
2. The Applicant seeks, among other reliefs, a declaration or interpretation that “life imprisonment” should be construed to mean a definite term of thirty (30) years’ incarceration.
3. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Applicant and is premised on Articles 50 and 165(3) of the Constitution and provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. The State opposed the application. It contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to interpret life imprisonment as a definite term, relying primarily on the decision in Republic v Ayako [2025] KESC 20 (KLR).
B. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
5. From the application, the issues for determination are:
i. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review or otherwise interfere with the Applicant’s sentence in the manner sought;
ii. Whether the application meets the legal threshold for sentence review or constitutional intervention;
iii. What orders, if any, should issue.
C. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
(i) Jurisdiction
6. Jurisdiction is key in any matter before a court . A court’s jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution or legislation (See Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others [2012] eKLR. In Owners of Motor Vessel ‘Lillian S’ v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR the Court observed that jurisdiction is everything and without it the court must pen down .
7. The Applicant invoked Article 165(3) of the Constitution. It is not in dispute that the High Court has original jurisdiction and power to interpret the Constitution. However, that jurisdiction has to be exercised within the law.
8. The record shows the matter proceeded to the Court of Appeal ( In Kisumu Criminal Appeal no. 309 of 2008 ) and the appeal was dismissed . The decisions of the Court of Appeal binds this Court. This Court lacks thus jurisdiction to hear the instant application.
9. In any event in the case of Republic v Ayako [2025] KESC 20 (KLR) the Supreme Court faced with a similar situation expressly cautioned against courts arbitrarily substituting statutory sentences or redefining punishments in the absence of legistlation to support the same . The Court emphasized that judiciary does not legislate sentencing parameters and that that role squarely lies with Parliament.
10. For the said reasons, I find no merit in the application and I proceed to dismiss it .
D. CONCLUSION
11. The application is fundamentally misconceived and it is devoid of merit. I proceed to dismiss it .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
9. 4.26
DELIVERED, VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2026, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT , MR NJERU FOR THE STATE & CA ONKUNDI
1. This is a ruling on the revision application dated 25th March 2025 filed by the Applicant, Mr. Andrew Okoth Simba. The Applicant was originally sentenced to death for murder; that sentence was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment by the President of Kenya.
2. The Applicant seeks, among other reliefs, a declaration or interpretation that “life imprisonment” should be construed to mean a definite term of thirty (30) years’ incarceration.
3. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Applicant and is premised on Articles 50 and 165(3) of the Constitution and provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. The State opposed the application. It contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to interpret life imprisonment as a definite term, relying primarily on the decision in Republic v Ayako [2025] KESC 20 (KLR).
B. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
5. From the application, the issues for determination are:
i. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review or otherwise interfere with the Applicant’s sentence in the manner sought;
ii. Whether the application meets the legal threshold for sentence review or constitutional intervention;
iii. What orders, if any, should issue.
C. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
(i) Jurisdiction
6. Jurisdiction is key in any matter before a court . A court’s jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution or legislation (See Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others [2012] eKLR. In Owners of Motor Vessel ‘Lillian S’ v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR the Court observed that jurisdiction is everything and without it the court must pen down .
7. The Applicant invoked Article 165(3) of the Constitution. It is not in dispute that the High Court has original jurisdiction and power to interpret the Constitution. However, that jurisdiction has to be exercised within the law.
8. The record shows the matter proceeded to the Court of Appeal ( In Kisumu Criminal Appeal no. 309 of 2008 ) and the appeal was dismissed . The decisions of the Court of Appeal binds this Court. This Court lacks thus jurisdiction to hear the instant application.
9. In any event in the case of Republic v Ayako [2025] KESC 20 (KLR) the Supreme Court faced with a similar situation expressly cautioned against courts arbitrarily substituting statutory sentences or redefining punishments in the absence of legistlation to support the same . The Court emphasized that judiciary does not legislate sentencing parameters and that that role squarely lies with Parliament.
10. For the said reasons, I find no merit in the application and I proceed to dismiss it .
D. CONCLUSION
11. The application is fundamentally misconceived and it is devoid of merit. I proceed to dismiss it .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
9. 4.26
DELIVERED, VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2026, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT , MR NJERU FOR THE STATE & CA ONKUNDI