Mweresa v Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E040 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 18513 (KLR) (20 November 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 18513 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NYAMIRA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E040 OF 2025 TW CHERERE, J NOVEMBER 20, 2025 BETWEEN ROBIN OBARE MWERESA ................................................................... APPLICANT AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS .................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Applicant, Robin Obare Mweresa, seeks orders that the sentences imposed in Nyamira Criminal Case No. 205 of 2016 and Nyamira Criminal Case No. 210 of 2016 be directed to run concurrently. He also seeks an order that the two files be consolidated. 2. In support of the application, he deposes that he was convicted and sentenced to death in Criminal Case No. 205 of 2016 for the offence of robbery with violence, and that upon appeal in HCCRA No. 13 of 2017, the death sentence was substituted with a term of 15 years’ imprisonment on 01st November 2018 substituted. He further states that he was separately convicted and sentenced in Criminal Case No. 210 of 2016 on 11th November 2024 to five (5) years’ imprisonment, and now prays that the two sentences be directed to run concurrently. 3. The Respondent opposed the application, arguing that the sentence in Criminal Case No. 205 of 2016 has already undergone appellate review and was conclusively determined in HCCRA No. 13 of 2017. Counsel submitted that if the Applicant is dissatisfied with that appellate outcome, his remedy lies in appealing to the Court of Appeal. The Respondent did not make submissions on Criminal Case No. 210 of 2016. Issue for Determination 4. The issue for determination is whether this Court has jurisdiction to order that the sentences in Criminal Case No. 205 of 2016 and Criminal Case No. 210 of 2016 run concurrently. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18513/eng@2025-11-20 1
page 1 of 3
Analysis and Determination 5. There is no doubt that Criminal Case No. 205 of 2016 was subjected to appellate review in HCCRA No. 13 of 2017, resulting in a substituted sentence of 15 years on 01st November 2018. That appellate decision finally determined the issue of sentence at the High Court. Consequently, this Court cannot, through revision or its inherent jurisdiction, revisit or alter a sentence that has already been considered and substituted on appeal. Concurrency of Sentences 6. On concurrency of sentences, I am guided by the principles of concurrent sentencing articulated in Peter Mbugua Kabui v Republic [2016] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal stated: “ As a general principle, the practice is that if an accused person commits a series of offences at the same time in a single act or transaction, a concurrent sentence should be given. However, if separate and distinct offences are committed in different criminal transactions, even though the counts may be in one charge sheet and one trial, it is not illegal to mete out a consecutive term of imprisonment.” 7. The Sentencing Policy Guidelines provide similar direction at paragraph 7.13 that: Where the offences emanate from a single transaction, the sentences should run concurrently. However, where the offences are committed in the course of multiple transactions and where there are multiple victims, the sentences should run consecutively. 8. Paragraph 7.13 of the guidelines provides that: The discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences lies with the court. 9. The foregoing principles are however inapplicable to the Applicant for the reason that the offences in Criminal Case No. 205 of 2016 and Criminal Case No. 210 of 2016 were not part of one continuous or single transaction. The charge sheets reveals that the offences were committed on different dates, involved different complainants, and constituted separate criminal incidents. Accordingly, they do not qualify for concurrency under the Court of Appeal jurisprudence or the Sentencing Policy Guidelines. 10. If the Applicant is aggrieved by the sentence imposed in HCCRA 13 of 2017, his remedy lies in appealing to the Court of Appeal. If he is dissatisfied with the sentence in Criminal Case No. 210 of 2016, he retains the right to appeal against that sentence. Disposition 11. For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the application for concurrence of sentences in Criminal Case No. 205 of 2016 and Criminal Case No. 210 of 2016 is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. WAMAE.T. W. CHERERE JUDGE Appearances Court Assistant - Hilda https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18513/eng@2025-11-20 2
page 2 of 3
Applicant - Present in person For the DPP - Mr. Chirchir (SADPP) https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18513/eng@2025-11-20 3
page 3 of 3