The applicant by way of Revision under Section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeks to have his sentence reviewed downwards from 17 years to a lesser term. The applicant was charged with defilement in the lower court. Applicant has informed this court that the learned Hon. Mr. justice Kimaru (as he then was) reduced the sentence from 21 years taking into account the period of pretrial detention.
The applicant states that he is now reformed thus deserving of mercy. The state has opposed his application citing the seriousness of the offence. I have considered the rival submissions by the applicant and counsel for the state.
The Applicant is clearly seeking to have a second bite at the cherry having benefited from the exercise of the Revisionary jurisdiction of this court. The law cannot have been meant to allow endless revision applications. This court cannot purport to review the orders of a Judge of this court granted in the exercise of the Revisionary jurisdiction of this court.
Infact the applicant is now seeking to have this court review the Honourable Judge’s orders. The court sitting on a Revision to review a High Court decision would be acting without jurisdiction.
Article 165 of the Constitution and Section 362-364 of the Criminal Procedure Code only grant power to this court to supervise the lower court and other tribunals. It cannot extend to orders of the High Court.
I therefore find and hold that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this application and in keeping with the wisdom expressed in the celebrated case of Motor Vessel Lilian ‘S’ Ltd Vs Caltex Oil (K) [1989] eKLR Ltd this court cannot come to the aid of the applicant.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed. The applicant shall continue to serve the remainder of the 17 years imprisonment.
It is so ordered.