1. Hesbon Muganda Adagi, whom I will refer to as “the Petitioner” filed the instant matter in the Judiciary Case Tracking System as an application for sentence review/revision orders. I however note from the record that among the documents that he filed is an undated notice of motion seeking the following orders:
a. THAT, may this Honourable Court be pleased to grant this petition filed and certified as urgent to be heard on priority basis
b. THAT, may this Honourable Court be pleased to import the reasoning of the court of appeal in the referred case above and order for a sentence review only thus instant case. (There is no case referred to in the Applicant’s application).
c. THAT, may this Honourable Court be pleased to declare that in the current jurisprudence mandatory death penalty is contrary to the laid down principles of a fair trial.
d. THAT, may this Honourable Court be pleased to consider the imposed mandatory death penalty and later commuted to indefinite life sentence as per presidential decree as harsh, excessive, cruel and degrading punishment and hence an order rendering its review be granted for interest of justice.
e. THAT, no cost to this petition as the petitioner is a pauper and has no money for the may be required court fee.
2. The other document filed by the Petitioner is a constitutional petition which, regrettably, does not specify any prayers or reliefs that the Petitioner seeks from this Court.
3. Furthermore, the Petitioner has failed to clearly identify the specific constitutional rights that are alleged to have been violated or are under threat, as well as the particular provisions of the Constitution upon which the petition is based. This omission renders the petition vague and unclear, making it difficult for the Court and the Respondent to properly address the alleged grievances.
4. While I acknowledge that the Petitioner is not legally trained and is not an Advocate, the law nevertheless requires that every Petitioner, regardless of professional status, must comply with the constitutional and procedural requirements governing the filing of a constitutional petition. Non-compliance with these requirements cannot be excused and may render the petition incompetent or liable to be dismissed.
5. The omission of reliefs sought and lack of precise identification of the rights alleged to have been infringed or threatened render the Petition vague, unclear and defective. It is elementary that a constitutional petition must disclose with reasonable precision the reliefs sought, the provisions breached and the manner of such breach.
6. A constitutional petition that fails in these basic respects falls short of the threshold required by law and is incompetent.
7. In the seminal case of Anarita Karimi Njeru v The Republic [1979] KEHC 30 (KLR), the court held that a constitutional petition should be drafted “…with a reasonable degree of precision… setting out that of which he complains, the provisions said to be infringed, and the manner in which they are alleged to be infringed.”
8. This principle was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2013] KECA 445 (KLR), where the appellate court underscored that merely citing broad constitutional Articles without particularising the alleged violations and the manner in which they are infringed, does not meet the threshold of a competent constitutional petition.
9. In the present petition, the Petitioner has not identified the specific constitutional rights or provisions he alleges were violated by the sentencing or its commutation. Instead, the Petition vaguely alludes to jurisprudential and policy concerns regarding mandatory sentencing without linking them to particular constitutional provisions or articulating how his rights have been violated. This falls materially short of the threshold set out in Anarita Karimi Njeru and Mumo Matemu.
10. Further, the Petition is defective for failing to set out the reliefs sought in terms that enable the Respondent and this Court to understand the exact orders the Petitioner wishes to Court to grant. It must be emphasized that a petition that does not state the reliefs sought is itself incompetent because it deprives the Court and opposing parties of fair notice of the remedy being pursued. These requirements are designed to ensure clarity, fairness and proper framing of issues for adjudication.
11. There is also a related flaw, as the Petition appears to critique sentence and sentencing policy, which are matters ordinarily addressed within the substantive criminal and appellate framework, and not through a constitutional petition in vacuo without establishing a direct infringement of rights under the Constitution.
12. Given the foregoing defects, the Petition as presently constituted fails to meet the threshold of a constitutional petition and is thus incompetent and defective. This Court cannot assume jurisdiction in respect of a Petition that does not specify the reliefs sought, the constitutional provisions relied upon and the manner of alleged violations, which are all essential elements required for proper constitutional adjudication.
13. In the circumstances and having regard to the interests of justice, the Petition is hereby struck out for want of compliance with the constitutional pleading requirements.
14. However, recognizing that the Petitioner may not be legally trained and in the interests of fairness, the Petitioner is granted leave to file a fresh Petition within 21 days from the date of this ruling, strictly in compliance with the Constitution (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, including clear specification of the constitutional provisions relied upon, the rights alleged to have been violated or threatened, the facts giving rise to those violations and the specific reliefs sought.
15. This petition is hereby struck out with no order as to costs.
16. This file is hereby closed.
DELIVERED (virtually) DATED and SIGNED this 17th day of March, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
APPLICANT: Present, virtually.
RESPONDENT: Ms. Muema.
COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.
a. THAT, may this Honourable Court be pleased to grant this petition filed and certified as urgent to be heard on priority basis
b. THAT, may this Honourable Court be pleased to import the reasoning of the court of appeal in the referred case above and order for a sentence review only thus instant case. (There is no case referred to in the Applicant’s application).
c. THAT, may this Honourable Court be pleased to declare that in the current jurisprudence mandatory death penalty is contrary to the laid down principles of a fair trial.
d. THAT, may this Honourable Court be pleased to consider the imposed mandatory death penalty and later commuted to indefinite life sentence as per presidential decree as harsh, excessive, cruel and degrading punishment and hence an order rendering its review be granted for interest of justice.
e. THAT, no cost to this petition as the petitioner is a pauper and has no money for the may be required court fee.
2. The other document filed by the Petitioner is a constitutional petition which, regrettably, does not specify any prayers or reliefs that the Petitioner seeks from this Court.
3. Furthermore, the Petitioner has failed to clearly identify the specific constitutional rights that are alleged to have been violated or are under threat, as well as the particular provisions of the Constitution upon which the petition is based. This omission renders the petition vague and unclear, making it difficult for the Court and the Respondent to properly address the alleged grievances.
4. While I acknowledge that the Petitioner is not legally trained and is not an Advocate, the law nevertheless requires that every Petitioner, regardless of professional status, must comply with the constitutional and procedural requirements governing the filing of a constitutional petition. Non-compliance with these requirements cannot be excused and may render the petition incompetent or liable to be dismissed.
5. The omission of reliefs sought and lack of precise identification of the rights alleged to have been infringed or threatened render the Petition vague, unclear and defective. It is elementary that a constitutional petition must disclose with reasonable precision the reliefs sought, the provisions breached and the manner of such breach.
6. A constitutional petition that fails in these basic respects falls short of the threshold required by law and is incompetent.
7. In the seminal case of Anarita Karimi Njeru v The Republic [1979] KEHC 30 (KLR), the court held that a constitutional petition should be drafted “…with a reasonable degree of precision… setting out that of which he complains, the provisions said to be infringed, and the manner in which they are alleged to be infringed.”
8. This principle was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2013] KECA 445 (KLR), where the appellate court underscored that merely citing broad constitutional Articles without particularising the alleged violations and the manner in which they are infringed, does not meet the threshold of a competent constitutional petition.
9. In the present petition, the Petitioner has not identified the specific constitutional rights or provisions he alleges were violated by the sentencing or its commutation. Instead, the Petition vaguely alludes to jurisprudential and policy concerns regarding mandatory sentencing without linking them to particular constitutional provisions or articulating how his rights have been violated. This falls materially short of the threshold set out in Anarita Karimi Njeru and Mumo Matemu.
10. Further, the Petition is defective for failing to set out the reliefs sought in terms that enable the Respondent and this Court to understand the exact orders the Petitioner wishes to Court to grant. It must be emphasized that a petition that does not state the reliefs sought is itself incompetent because it deprives the Court and opposing parties of fair notice of the remedy being pursued. These requirements are designed to ensure clarity, fairness and proper framing of issues for adjudication.
11. There is also a related flaw, as the Petition appears to critique sentence and sentencing policy, which are matters ordinarily addressed within the substantive criminal and appellate framework, and not through a constitutional petition in vacuo without establishing a direct infringement of rights under the Constitution.
12. Given the foregoing defects, the Petition as presently constituted fails to meet the threshold of a constitutional petition and is thus incompetent and defective. This Court cannot assume jurisdiction in respect of a Petition that does not specify the reliefs sought, the constitutional provisions relied upon and the manner of alleged violations, which are all essential elements required for proper constitutional adjudication.
13. In the circumstances and having regard to the interests of justice, the Petition is hereby struck out for want of compliance with the constitutional pleading requirements.
14. However, recognizing that the Petitioner may not be legally trained and in the interests of fairness, the Petitioner is granted leave to file a fresh Petition within 21 days from the date of this ruling, strictly in compliance with the Constitution (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, including clear specification of the constitutional provisions relied upon, the rights alleged to have been violated or threatened, the facts giving rise to those violations and the specific reliefs sought.
15. This petition is hereby struck out with no order as to costs.
16. This file is hereby closed.
DELIVERED (virtually) DATED and SIGNED this 17th day of March, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
APPLICANT: Present, virtually.
RESPONDENT: Ms. Muema.
COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.