1. The Applicant, by the application dated 09th February 2026, seeks the benefit of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by asking this Court to take into account the period allegedly spent in custody before sentence.
2. The record shows that the Applicant was tried before this Court, convicted of the offence of murder contrary to sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code, and on 22nd November 2028 sentenced to serve twenty (20) years' imprisonment. The conviction arose from the judgment delivered by this Court.
3. Once this Court pronounced judgment, convicted the Applicant and imposed sentence, it became functus officio. Save for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors or where jurisdiction is expressly conferred by statute, the Court cannot reopen or vary its own final judgment and sentence. The jurisdiction to challenge the conviction or sentence thereafter lies with the appellate court.
4. The order sought would require this Court to revisit and alter the sentence imposed in its final judgment. That is not a jurisdiction vested in this Court after it has become functus officio. If the Applicant is dissatisfied with the sentence imposed or contends that the provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code were not properly applied at the time of sentencing, the appropriate remedy lies before the Court of Appeal.
5. Accordingly, I find that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application. The Notice of Motion dated 09th February 2026 is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
6. The Applicant is at liberty, if so advised, to pursue the appropriate remedy before the Court of Appeal.
2. The record shows that the Applicant was tried before this Court, convicted of the offence of murder contrary to sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code, and on 22nd November 2028 sentenced to serve twenty (20) years' imprisonment. The conviction arose from the judgment delivered by this Court.
3. Once this Court pronounced judgment, convicted the Applicant and imposed sentence, it became functus officio. Save for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors or where jurisdiction is expressly conferred by statute, the Court cannot reopen or vary its own final judgment and sentence. The jurisdiction to challenge the conviction or sentence thereafter lies with the appellate court.
4. The order sought would require this Court to revisit and alter the sentence imposed in its final judgment. That is not a jurisdiction vested in this Court after it has become functus officio. If the Applicant is dissatisfied with the sentence imposed or contends that the provisions of section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code were not properly applied at the time of sentencing, the appropriate remedy lies before the Court of Appeal.
5. Accordingly, I find that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application. The Notice of Motion dated 09th February 2026 is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
6. The Applicant is at liberty, if so advised, to pursue the appropriate remedy before the Court of Appeal.