REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2017 SAMUEL OUMA Alias AMBOYE OCHIKO ..................................PETITIONER VERSUS REPUBLIC.......................................................................................RESPONDENT RULING 1. This matter was placed before me for the purpose of giving directions, in view of the recent decision by the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus Curiae [2021] (Koome CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Ndung’u & Lenaola SSJJ), with respect to mandatory sentences, where it was clarified that the decision, in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic [2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), had arisen from proceedings relating to murder, under section 204 of the Penal Code, Cap 63, Laws of Kenya, and the position stated in the said decision was intended to apply only to mandatory sentences with respect to murder cases. 2. The Motion herein, dated 28 th March 2017, filed herein on 14 th June 2017, is not founded on Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another vs. Republic [2017] eKLR (Maraga CJ&P, Mwilu DCJ&VP, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola SCJJ), for the applicant does no seek review of sentence. He was convicted in Butere SRMCCRC No. 512 of 2009 of the offence he has not disclosed. It is not clear whether he filed any appeal. His Motion is so vague that I cannot make out what the applicant is seeking from court. In the circumstances, I shall strike out the motion and order closure of the file. 3. The Deputy registrar shall cause copies of this ruling to be availed to the Petitioner and the Officer of Director Public Prosecution. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 W MUSYOKA JUDGE
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.