- Sospeter Lomong’o Lorio, the Applicant, was tried, found guilty and convicted for the offence of Murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. Following the conviction, he was sentenced to serve fifteen (15) years imprisonment.
- Following the decision of the court, the applicant has approached this court through a Notice of Motion dated 9th July,2024, seeking review of sentence in the matter, HCCR Case No. 32 of 2017. He seeks time spent in custody during trial to be considered.
- The court in the matter delivered itself thus:
“ The Court of Appeal has capped the life sentence to thirty (30) but the court considering the accused circumstances and the period he has been in custody, will award a lesser sentence to enable the accused to be fully reformed and also to punish and deter him from further such actions.
The accused is thus sentenced to serve fifteen (15) years with effect from the dates of this ruling.”
- Notably, this is a matter that was determined by the High Court which calls into play the principle of finality or functus officio. This court having finally exercised its authority in the case and determined the matter following mitigation rendered, it would have no jurisdiction to re-open the case with a view of considering the relief sought. The doctrine of “functus officio” was clearly stated in Telcom Kenya Ltd v John Ochanda (2014) eKLR. The court delivered itself thus;
“Functus officio is an enduring principle of law that prevents the re-opening of a matter before a court that rendered a final decision.”
- The upshot of the above is that I have no power to grant orders sought. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
- It is so ordered.