REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET MISC. NO. 106 OF 2017 MARADONA MWANGI ANGUTWA ……….….APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC ………………..…………...........RESPONDENT RULING I have read and considered the undated Notice of Motion filed in this court on 23 rd September, 2017 by the applicant Maradona Mwangi Angutwa. In the main, the applicant claims that he was convicted of the offence of attempted robbery contrary to Section 297(2) of the Penal Code and was sentenced to serve a term of seven years imprisonment. He has not disclosed the Criminal Case in which he was convicted or the court that entered the conviction and passed the alleged sentence. He however seeks a review of that sentence on grounds that he has now completely reformed and has attained some technical skills including arc welding when serving his prison term. In my considered view, the applicant has not properly invoked this court’s revisionary jurisdiction. He has not faulted the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court in any way. He has not claimed that it was illegal. He seeks review solely on grounds that he has now reformed and that the period he has spent in remand awaiting trial should be considered. These are not grounds that would justify a review of sentence whose legality is not challenged and is not said to be either harsh or manifestly excessive. The court can only exercise its revisionary jurisdiction as donated by Section 362 as read with Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code where it is alleged and demonstrated by the applicant that the order or sentence sought to be reviewed was either illegal, irregular or tainted with some impropriety. In view of the foregoing, I am satisfied that the applicant’s motion lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. C. W. GITHUA JUDGE DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at ELDORET this 5th day of October, 2017.
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.