Samuel Maundu Ndolo v Republic

h. That the Applicant prays that the remaining sentence (if any) be ordered that he serve under community service (probation) 3. The applicant seeks that this court revise his sentence to a lenient sentence putting into account that he has been in prison since 2013 when he was arrested, and that the remaining sentence be non-custodial. 4. He has filed a supporting affidavit reiterating the grounds. 5. I have carefully considered the application – the affidavit in support. 6. Is it merited? 7. Article 165(6) of the Constitution states:(6) The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court. The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts … but not over a superior court. 8. Justice Charles Kariuki J is a judge of the High Court, a superior court, and this court does not have supervisory jurisdiction over his court – the Article sets out the supervisory jurisdiction to be over – subordinate courts, person/bodies/authority exercising judicial or quasi – judicial authority. From the wording here this court cannot exercise supervisory jurisdiction over another judge of the same jurisdiction. 9. The applicant relies on Rule 21 of Legal Notice 189 of 2022 High Court (Organization and Administration) Act (Act No. 27 of 2015) the Practice directions made in order to standardize practice and procedures in the High Court. Rule 21 which states:21. Criminal Re-Sentence applications i. An application for re- sentence only from murder trials where sentences have been passed by way of a notice of motion application accompanied by an affidavit or a letter to the Judge setting out the grounds for the order sought. ii. The application may be placed before a Judge for directions on the same day. 10. My understanding is that this rule refers to revision of resentence - a practice that arose out of the Muruatetu decision – where persons who were sentenced to the mandatory death sentence were given a window to appear before the judge, have their mitigation heard, and their sentence reviewed accordingly. 11. I have seen the record. It is evident that upon conviction on 19/7/2019, the accused through his advocate, Mr. Hassan mitigated before the judge. 12. In arriving at his sentence, the learned judge, states that he has taken into account the mitigation of the accused person. He had also sought a probation report which he also considered. He considered that the accused was a 1st offender among others and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment. 13. Evidently, the applicant’s mitigation was considered; and more importantly he was not sentenced to the mandatory death sentence. 14. On the issue of leniency, the fact that the judge heard his mitigation and determined the sentence renders this court functus officio. 15. In the circumstances the application is declined for want of jurisdiction . https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4320/eng@2026-02-20 2

page 2 of 3

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIS CTS THIS 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 MUMBUA T MATHEKA JUDGE Court Assistant – Daniel Signed by/for: LADY JUSTICE MATHEKA, TERESIA MUMBUA THE JUDICIARY OF KENYA. MAKUENI HIGH COURT DATE: 2026-02-21 17:54:03 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4320/eng@2026-02-20 3

page 3 of 3