1. The Applicant was convicted in Nyamira Criminal SO 786 of 2011 and sentenced to life imprisonment on 27th June 2012. He appealed to this Court in Samwel Momanyi Ndubi v Republic [2016] KEHC 5420 (KLR) and the Court in its judgment delivered on 14th March 2016, the Court reconsidered the evidence, upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal, thereby leaving the sentence undisturbed.
2. The Applicant has moved the Court by the Notice of Motion dated 21st May 2025, supported by an affidavit sworn on the same date. He seeks a reduction of the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him following his conviction for defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. He relies on the period spent in custody, his rehabilitation and the mitigating circumstances which he asks the Court to consider
3. The question for determination is whether this Court, having already determined the Applicant's appeal, has jurisdiction to reopen the matter and reconsider the sentence.
4. The doctrine of functus officio prevents a court from reopening a matter which it has finally determined, save where the law permits such intervention. The principle is founded on the finality of judicial decisions and prevents a court from repeatedly exercising adjudicative jurisdiction over the same matter.
5. The Court of Appeal in Lusaka v Republic [2023] KECA 1071 (KLR), held that a court which has finally determined an appeal is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to review the sentence.
6. That principle applies with equal force in the present case. This Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction and, upon determining the appeal, dismissed it, with the result that the sentence remained undisturbed. The Applicant now seeks to have that sentence substantively reduced on the basis of circumstances arising during his imprisonment. The application therefore calls upon this Court to revisit a sentence that formed part of an appeal which it has already finally determined.
7. No legal basis has been demonstrated upon which this Court may, having finally determined the appeal, revisit the sentence. The period spent in custody and the Applicant's rehabilitation, while relied upon in support of the application, cannot confer jurisdiction upon this Court to reopen its concluded appellate determination.
8. I therefore find that this Court is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to reconsider or reduce the sentence. The Notice of Motion dated 21st May 2025 is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 22nd DAY OF September 2026
2. The Applicant has moved the Court by the Notice of Motion dated 21st May 2025, supported by an affidavit sworn on the same date. He seeks a reduction of the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him following his conviction for defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. He relies on the period spent in custody, his rehabilitation and the mitigating circumstances which he asks the Court to consider
3. The question for determination is whether this Court, having already determined the Applicant's appeal, has jurisdiction to reopen the matter and reconsider the sentence.
4. The doctrine of functus officio prevents a court from reopening a matter which it has finally determined, save where the law permits such intervention. The principle is founded on the finality of judicial decisions and prevents a court from repeatedly exercising adjudicative jurisdiction over the same matter.
5. The Court of Appeal in Lusaka v Republic [2023] KECA 1071 (KLR), held that a court which has finally determined an appeal is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to review the sentence.
6. That principle applies with equal force in the present case. This Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction and, upon determining the appeal, dismissed it, with the result that the sentence remained undisturbed. The Applicant now seeks to have that sentence substantively reduced on the basis of circumstances arising during his imprisonment. The application therefore calls upon this Court to revisit a sentence that formed part of an appeal which it has already finally determined.
7. No legal basis has been demonstrated upon which this Court may, having finally determined the appeal, revisit the sentence. The period spent in custody and the Applicant's rehabilitation, while relied upon in support of the application, cannot confer jurisdiction upon this Court to reopen its concluded appellate determination.
8. I therefore find that this Court is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to reconsider or reduce the sentence. The Notice of Motion dated 21st May 2025 is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 22nd DAY OF September 2026