1. The applicants herein were charged with the offence of murder contrary to Sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to full hearing. On 16th September 2019 they were found guilty of the offence of murder and sentenced to serve 23 years and 24 years imprisonment respectively, effective from the date of conviction. The court took into account the period each of the convict had spent in remand before conviction.
2. The applicants have now filed similar applications in Revision E040 of 2025 and E046 of 2024 seeking a review of sentence. They contend that have been in custody since the date of arrest 16th September 2012, have served a substantial portion of the sentences, and have undergone rehabilitative programs while in prison. They state that they are remorseful and reformed, and therefore urge the court to reduce their sentences.
3. Each applicant has sworn an affidavit reiterating the grounds of appeal set our herein.
4. During the hearing, the applicants emphasized that they do not challenge their conviction but only seek a review of sentence. They expressed remorse and apologized to the court.
5. The applications were opposed by the prosecution counsel who argued that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the decision of a court of concurrent jurisdiction. Counsel submitted that since the applicants opted not to appeal to the Court of Appeal, they must serve their sentence to completion. They urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
6. I have considered the application, the supporting affidavit as well as submissions of both parties.
7. it is not in dispute that the applicants were convicted by the High Court for the offence of murder in Criminal Case No. 31 of 2012. They now seek a review of sentence on grounds that the never appealed and that they have reformed and are remorseful. In the case of Daniel Otieno Oracha versus Republic (2019) KEHC 6242 KLR where the court held that;
“13. This court and the High Court at Kisumu are courts of concurrent jurisdiction. That being the case, this court is devoid of any jurisdiction in the exercise of its judicial authority under Article 159 of the Constitution, to review a judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction. To do so would be tantamount to sitting as an Appellate court on the judgment of my sister Judge Hon. Abida Ali - Aroni, J.
14. The law abhors that practice of a judge sitting to review a judgment or decision of another judge of concurrent jurisdiction. Reduction of sentence could only be considered by the Court of Appeal or if this court was sitting on appeal of a judgment of the subordinate court or if the petitioner was seeking for resentence after exhausting appeal mechanisms and not otherwise.
15. This court’s jurisdiction is derived from various statutes and Article 165 of the Constitution. In Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another V. KCB & 2 Others App. No. 2/2011, the Supreme Court of Kenya made it clear that a court cannot arrogate itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law, and that a court cannot expand its jurisdiction through judicial craft.
16. The judgment of Abida Ali-Aroni J made in accordance with the law has not been challenged. This court cannot sit on appeal of its own judgment or of court of concurrent competent jurisdiction when the Petitioner had an opportunity to ventilate his grievance before the Court of Appeal even if
8. Accordingly, guided by this authority, I find that this court lacks the jurisdiction to review the sentence imposed by another judge of the High Court. The applicants had the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal but chose not to exercise it. This court cannot now assume appellate jurisdiction over a decision of a court of equal standing.
9. Accordingly, the applications in HCCR Revision Nos. E040 of 2025 and E046 of 2025 are hereby dismissed.
Dated, signed and delivered at Machakos this …6th day of March, 2026
2. The applicants have now filed similar applications in Revision E040 of 2025 and E046 of 2024 seeking a review of sentence. They contend that have been in custody since the date of arrest 16th September 2012, have served a substantial portion of the sentences, and have undergone rehabilitative programs while in prison. They state that they are remorseful and reformed, and therefore urge the court to reduce their sentences.
3. Each applicant has sworn an affidavit reiterating the grounds of appeal set our herein.
4. During the hearing, the applicants emphasized that they do not challenge their conviction but only seek a review of sentence. They expressed remorse and apologized to the court.
5. The applications were opposed by the prosecution counsel who argued that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the decision of a court of concurrent jurisdiction. Counsel submitted that since the applicants opted not to appeal to the Court of Appeal, they must serve their sentence to completion. They urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
6. I have considered the application, the supporting affidavit as well as submissions of both parties.
7. it is not in dispute that the applicants were convicted by the High Court for the offence of murder in Criminal Case No. 31 of 2012. They now seek a review of sentence on grounds that the never appealed and that they have reformed and are remorseful. In the case of Daniel Otieno Oracha versus Republic (2019) KEHC 6242 KLR where the court held that;
“13. This court and the High Court at Kisumu are courts of concurrent jurisdiction. That being the case, this court is devoid of any jurisdiction in the exercise of its judicial authority under Article 159 of the Constitution, to review a judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction. To do so would be tantamount to sitting as an Appellate court on the judgment of my sister Judge Hon. Abida Ali - Aroni, J.
14. The law abhors that practice of a judge sitting to review a judgment or decision of another judge of concurrent jurisdiction. Reduction of sentence could only be considered by the Court of Appeal or if this court was sitting on appeal of a judgment of the subordinate court or if the petitioner was seeking for resentence after exhausting appeal mechanisms and not otherwise.
15. This court’s jurisdiction is derived from various statutes and Article 165 of the Constitution. In Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another V. KCB & 2 Others App. No. 2/2011, the Supreme Court of Kenya made it clear that a court cannot arrogate itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law, and that a court cannot expand its jurisdiction through judicial craft.
16. The judgment of Abida Ali-Aroni J made in accordance with the law has not been challenged. This court cannot sit on appeal of its own judgment or of court of concurrent competent jurisdiction when the Petitioner had an opportunity to ventilate his grievance before the Court of Appeal even if
8. Accordingly, guided by this authority, I find that this court lacks the jurisdiction to review the sentence imposed by another judge of the High Court. The applicants had the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal but chose not to exercise it. This court cannot now assume appellate jurisdiction over a decision of a court of equal standing.
9. Accordingly, the applications in HCCR Revision Nos. E040 of 2025 and E046 of 2025 are hereby dismissed.
Dated, signed and delivered at Machakos this …6th day of March, 2026