Mulatya v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E018 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10911 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10911 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MAKUENI MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION E018 OF 2025 JN ONYIEGO, J JULY 17, 2026 BETWEEN ALBANUS MULEI MULATYA ............................................................... APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Applicant herein was charged with the ofience of defilement contrary section 8(1) as read with section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act No.3 of 2006. Having denied the ofience, the case proceeded to full trial. He was consequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. Subsequently, he appealed to the High Court vide Cr. Appeal Number 24 of 2018 whereby the sentence was reduced to 30 years. He has now moved to this court vide a Notice of Motion dated 28-4-2025 seeking revision of sentence on grounds that; he has a family that depends on him and that he has reformed during his 7 years’ stay in custody; 3. In response, the Respondent filed grounds of opposition urging that the application is bad in law; the sentence imposed is legal in law; the court is functus oficio as it has has already pronounced itself on the same subject. 4. Besides, the Respondent filed submissions dated 15-12-2025 reiterating the Grounds of Objection. On the legality of sentence, it was contended that the sentence is safe and legal. 5. On the question of lack of jurisdiction, it was submitted that this court has already pronounced itself over the same subject on appeal hence cannot revisit the issues. 6. Regarding resentencing, counsel referred to the case of Muruatetu & Another v Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus curiae) Petition Number 1516 consolidated of https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10911/eng@2026-07-17 1
page 1 of 3
2015(2021)KESC31(KLR) in which the Supreme Court held that resentence under that case only applied to murder cases. 7. On the question of discovery of new compelling matters, counsel opined that none exists. 8. I have considered the application herein and the oral submissions by both parties. The main issue for determination is; whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to determine the application herein and issue the orders sought. 9. The law governing revision in a criminal case is captured under Section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides as follows; “ 362. Power of High Court to call for Records The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court. 364. (1) (2) Powers of High Court on Revision In the case of a proceeding in a subordinate court the record of which has been called for or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may— (a) in the case of a conviction, exercise any of the powers conferred on it as a court of appeal by Sections 354, 357 and 358, and may enhance the sentence; (b) in the case of any other order other than an order of acquittal, alter or reverse the order. (c) in proceedings under Section 203 or 296(2) of the Panel Code (Cap. 63), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Cap. 59B), the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act (Cap. 245), the Prevention of Organized Crimes Act (Cap. 59), the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (Cap. 59A), the Sexual Offences Act (Cap. 63A) and the Counter-Trafficking in Persons Act (Cap. 61), where the subordinate court has granted bail to an accused person, and the Director of Public Prosecution has indicated his intention to apply for review of the order of the court, the order of the subordinate court may be stayed for a period not exceeding fourteen days pending the filing of the application for review. No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of an accused person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by an advocate in his own defence: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to an order made where a subordinate court has failed to pass a sentence which it was required to pass under the written law creating the ofience concerned. 1. Where the sentence dealt with under this section has been passed by a subordinate court, the High Court shall not inflict a greater punishment for the ofience which in the opinion of the High Court the accused has committed than might have been inflicted by the court which imposed the sentence. (4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10911/eng@2026-07-17 2
page 2 of 3
(5) When an appeal lies from a finding, sentence or order, and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the insistence of the party who could have appealed. 10. It is clear from the above provisions that an application for review of sentence can be entertained only for purposes of the court satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the proceedings. Section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code is emphatic that no application for revision should be entertained where an appeal lies from a sentence or order. This position was espoused in Criminal Revision Number 194 of 2023 Kisii High Court in the case of Barongo Sianyo Atembe vs Republic. 11. In the instant case, the Applicant is seeking sympathy on account that he has been in custody long enough to warrant his release. The ofience the Applicant was charged with is very serious. There is no law providing for revision under the circumstances. I do agree with the prosecution that the court is functus oficio as it has already pronounced itself over the same subject on appeal hence cannot assume appellate jurisdiction on its own judgment. Accordingly, application is dismissed. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026 ……………………………….. J. N. ONYIEGO JUDGE H.C.MISC. CR. APPL. E018/25 Albanus Mulei Mulatya Vs Republic Page 2 of 2 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10911/eng@2026-07-17 3
page 3 of 3