'
The applicant was charged with the offense of murder in High Court Criminal case number 60/2015 R. Vs. Paul Odhiambo Ogunde.
He was convicted and sentenced to serve 20 years imprisonment.
The applicant moved to the Court of Appeal challenging both conviction and sentence.
The appeal was dismissed and the sentence upheld.
The applicant has pleaded with this court to exercise its jurisdiction and review the sentence.
He argues that he has been in custody for long and that he has reformed.
The application is opposed by the states on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter since the Court of Appeal has already pronounced itself on the same.
This court agrees with the submission by counsel for the state that the sentence of 20 years imprisonment having been imposed by the High Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant application.
If this court was to entertain the matter, that would be akin to sitting on an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal a position that would be untenable in law. Article 162(1) of the Constitution clearly lays out the hierarchy of courts in Kenya and that hierarchy must be respected by all courts whenever called upon to make a decision. The decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal bind this court thus there cannot be a situation where the High Court can be called upon to review the decision of the Court of Appeal. Any such invitation must be rejected sua sponte.
The Court of Appeal in Owners of Motor Vessel Lillian S Vs. Caltex Oil Kenya Ltd (1989) eKLR held that jurisdiction is everything and without it a court must down its tools.
It would be wrong for this court to purport to revisit a matter that has been decided on by the Court of Appeal.
If the applicant still believes that he has a case for review of sentence then he must approach the Court of Appeal that being the court that dealt with the issue of sentence last.
The applicant should be advised that Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not confer jurisdiction upon the High court to review decisions of the High Court or Court of Appeal.
The provisions of Articles 22(1), 23 (3) (f), 25 (c), 27,28,47 (1) and 165 (3) (a) of the Constitution cannot also clothe this court with jurisdiction to overturn a decision of the Court of Appeal.
The application is thus bad in law, incompetent and is accordingly struck out.
It is so ordered.
'
The applicant was charged with the offense of murder in High Court Criminal case number 60/2015 R. Vs. Paul Odhiambo Ogunde.
He was convicted and sentenced to serve 20 years imprisonment.
The applicant moved to the Court of Appeal challenging both conviction and sentence.
The appeal was dismissed and the sentence upheld.
The applicant has pleaded with this court to exercise its jurisdiction and review the sentence.
He argues that he has been in custody for long and that he has reformed.
The application is opposed by the states on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter since the Court of Appeal has already pronounced itself on the same.
This court agrees with the submission by counsel for the state that the sentence of 20 years imprisonment having been imposed by the High Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant application.
If this court was to entertain the matter, that would be akin to sitting on an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal a position that would be untenable in law. Article 162(1) of the Constitution clearly lays out the hierarchy of courts in Kenya and that hierarchy must be respected by all courts whenever called upon to make a decision. The decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal bind this court thus there cannot be a situation where the High Court can be called upon to review the decision of the Court of Appeal. Any such invitation must be rejected sua sponte.
The Court of Appeal in Owners of Motor Vessel Lillian S Vs. Caltex Oil Kenya Ltd (1989) eKLR held that jurisdiction is everything and without it a court must down its tools.
It would be wrong for this court to purport to revisit a matter that has been decided on by the Court of Appeal.
If the applicant still believes that he has a case for review of sentence then he must approach the Court of Appeal that being the court that dealt with the issue of sentence last.
The applicant should be advised that Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not confer jurisdiction upon the High court to review decisions of the High Court or Court of Appeal.
The provisions of Articles 22(1), 23 (3) (f), 25 (c), 27,28,47 (1) and 165 (3) (a) of the Constitution cannot also clothe this court with jurisdiction to overturn a decision of the Court of Appeal.
The application is thus bad in law, incompetent and is accordingly struck out.
It is so ordered.
'