Skip to content
JudgmentThe Republic AND CHARLES KARANJA MWANGI VS2 min read

The Republic AND CHARLES KARANJA MWANGI VS

High Court at Nyahururu High Court · · Lilian Mutende

G

  1. Charles Karanja Mwangi, the applicant, was indicted, convicted by the lower court for the offence of defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, and sentenced to serve twenty (20) years imprisonment. His first appeal to the High Court was dismissed for lack of merit. Aggrieved, he preferred a second appeal to the Court of Appeal sitting in Nakuru, which was dismissed on 26th   July, 2024.
  2. Subsequently, he approached this court through an un dated application filed herein on 17th October,2022, seeking to be awarded a lenient definite sentence  as provided by Article 50(2)(p)(q) of the Constitution and for the court to take into account the period he stayed in remand custody  pursuant to the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  3. This is a matter where the appellant’s appeal was heard and determined to finality, therefore, issues raised cannot arise as this court cannot re-open the case. This court does not have Jurisdiction to determine the matter as it is functus officio.
  4. The Supreme Court expounding on the doctrine of functus officio in Raila Odinga & Others v 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.


    The Republic AND CHARLES KARANJA MWANGI VS The Republic AND CHARLES KARANJA MWANGI VS