Skip to content
JudgmentPETER KURIA KAIRU VS The Republic2 min read

PETER KURIA KAIRU VS The Republic

High Court at Nyahururu High Court · · Lilian Mutende


  1. Peter Kuria Kairu, the applicant, was convicted by the lower court for the offence of causing grievous harm contrary to Section 234 of the Penal Code and sentenced to serve twenty-five (25) years imprisonment. His first appeal was dismissed by the High Court presided over by Wendoh J. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the trial court.
  2. Through an undated application, the applicant seeks to be released on a non-custodial sentence, preferably to be placed under probation supervision. In seeking review the applicant called upon the court to exercise the discretion considering that he has all along been remorseful as demonstrated in his defence.
  3. Through an application dated 12th January,2022, the applicant moved the High Court presided over by CM Kariuki J seeking revision of the sentence so as to be placed on Community Service Order, an application that was rejected.
  4. Revisionary Jurisdiction cannot be invoked where a party has filed an appeal. The appellant’s appeal was heard and determined to finality therefore issues raised cannot arise. This court would therefore not have Jurisdiction to determine the matter as it is functus officio.
  5. The Supreme Court expounding on the doctrine of functus officio in Raila Odinga & Others vs. IEBC & Others [2013] eklr citing with approval an excerpt from an article by Daniel Malan Pretorius, in “The Origins of the functus officio Doctrine, with Specific Reference to its Application in Administrative Law,” (2005) 122 SALJ 832 stated thus:

“The functus officio doctrine is one of the mechanisms by means of which the law gives expression to the principle of finality. According to this doctrine, a person who is vested with adjudicative or decision-making powers may, as a general rule, exercise those powers only once in relation to the same matter.… The [principle] is that once such a decision has been given, it is (subject to any right of appeal to a superior body or functionary) final and conclusive. Such a decision cannot be revoked or varied by the decision-maker.”

  1. The upshot of the above is that this court being functus officio is not seized of jurisdiction to determine the matter. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed.
  2. It is so ordered.


    PETER KURIA KAIRU VS The Republic PETER KURIA KAIRU VS The Republic