High Court 2348 of 2017

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET HIGH COURT CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 130 OF 2017 ALICE JEROTICH KOILEGE …………………………….APPLICANT -VERSUSREPUBLIC.………………………………….…………...RESPONDENT RULING 1. Following my orders/directions issued on 5th October, 2017, the original record in Eldoret Criminal Case No. 3736 of 2017 has now been placed before me. 2. I have perused the said record and considered the Notice of Motion dated 4th October, 2017 and the deposition made by the applicant Alice Jerotich Koilege on the same date in support thereof. 3. In the main, the applicant seeks a review of her conviction and sentence. She requests the court to find that her plea of guilty was equivocal and improper. She also seeks that the sentence imposed upon her by the trial court be revised and substituted with a non-custodial sentence. 4. In seeking a review of her conviction, the applicant contends that she pleaded guilty under duress from police officers; that the charge was read in a language she did not understand; that she was not given an opportunity to dispute the facts of the case. 5. In support of her plea for review of sentence, she claims that she is unwell and needs to access proper diet and medication which are not available in prison; that she is a single parent with children of tender years. 6. The court’s revisionary jurisdiction is donated by Section 362 as read with Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). These two provisions read together leave no doubt that the court can only exercise this jurisdiction if it is satisfied that there was an illegality, irregularity, mistake or impropriety in the decision, sentence or orders sought to be reviewed. 7. Section 364(5) of the CPC prohibits this court from entertaining applications for revision at the instance of a party who could have appealed against the order or decision sought to be reviewed. 8. In this case, the applicant was the accused person in the aforesaid criminal case. She was convicted on her own plea of guilty. The grounds anchoring the motion and the depositions made by the applicant shows clearly that she was aggrieved by her conviction and sentence. Infact, the grounds relied upon by the applicant resonate more with an appeal against conviction and sentence than with an application for revision. Having been dissatisfied with her conviction and sentence, the applicant ought to have appealed against the trial court’s decision instead of filing the instant application for review. 9. Given my finding that the applicant is in the class of persons contemplated under Section 364 (5) of the CPC, it is my conclusion that this application is not merited and it is hereby dismissed. It is so ordered. C.W GITHUA

page 1 of 2